Conference 7.286::digital

All those anonymous notes from folks who are afraid that they'll get canned,
and here we have someone who's anonymous because he's afraid he won't!

    	Have you told your manager that YOU WANT the package?
    
    	It could very well be that at this very moment s/he is fretting
    	over how to equitably apply his/her quota of layoffs that s/he was
    	just ordered to do.
    
    	There are some people who are offered the package that don't want
    	it.  There are others offered it who want it.  There are others
    	like you who have not been offered the package who would gladly
    	accept it.  There are others like me who have not been offered it
    	and would not be happy getting tapped.
    
    	Managers gould probably accommodate more people if they knew
    	where their charges stood on this issue.
    
    

    To shed some light on the subject.  It is my understanding that the
    criteria for employees eligible for the TFSO involuntary package is
    that your job has to have gone away or is in some way a redundant
    position that is performed throughout the company and therefore needs
    to be streamlined.  However, if your work has not gone away or you do
    not perform redundant work or you are in a critical job, then you are 
    NOT eligible for the TFSO package.  
    
    The reason for this is real simple.  No company likes to downsize, but 
    when economic situations such as the one we have right now impacts 
    business then companies have no choice.  They are in business to make
    mooney, they don't make money then expenses need to be cut andif that
    is not enough to get the company in the black then jobs are impacted.  
    The only logicial way to downsize is to assess the work that is going 
    away or redundant.  Once this is identified then those are the jobs 
    that need to be downsized.  It wouldn't make any sense to DOWNSIZE in 
    your critical needs areas because you would only have to turn around 
    and replace those positions, which causes more expenses (train, 
    development, etc.) that the company can't afford.
    
    Sure you may have an employee that is screaming take me, take me but if
    they are in a critical job you can't.  Then the argument is well
    replace the willing employee with the unwilling.  Well, there might not
    be a skill match.  It's not an easy situation.
    
    Another thing to keep in mind is that Digital NEVER had to deal with
    this type of situation before, it is NOT EASY no matter what side of
    the fence you are on.  It is painful to ALL.  
       
    I hope this response helps clarify things for employees.
                                                  

RE: .2 

While possible that a manager may be in the process of deciding who in 
his/her department will get the package, I hope nobody believes it is 
anywhere near that simple.   In most of the cases that I have been 
aware of, the decision had little to do with the manager as it decided 
on job code or other criteria, at a level much higher than the 
manager.   The concept of a manager being able to accomodate in some 
way an individual who wants the package but is not considered 
eligable, although a positive and constructive response, is in reality 
not very likely.    In a group I previously worked in, when we had 
"the meeting" to explain the package and who was eligable, there were 
at least 5 levels of management present, who couldn't have cared any 
less about those present that wanted the package but weren't 
considered eligable.  The usual disclaimer applies; I'm not an expert, 
and obviously this is not indicative of every group.   While I agree 
it is good advice to let one's manager know if one wants the package, 
IMO, one would be looking through rose-colored glasses to expect this 
action alone to have any impact.

RE: .3

>    To shed some light on the subject.  It is my understanding that the
>    criteria for employees eligible for the TFSO involuntary package is
>    that your job has to have gone away or is in some way a redundant
>    position that is performed throughout the company and therefore needs
>    to be streamlined.  However, if your work has not gone away or you do
>    not perform redundant work or you are in a critical job, then you are 
>    NOT eligible for the TFSO package.  

In theory, this sounds great.   But who determines what is redundant 
or critical?   One problem here as I have observed it, it that DEC 
makes the rule, and says this is how it will be unless you are an 
"exception".  All of a sudden, everyone feels that they are the 
"exception".   Where's the check and balance?  So once again, who 
determines this?   How many times have we seen folks given the "package", 
only to [figuratively] pass by their replacement on the way out the door?

>    The only logicial way to downsize is to assess the work that is going 
>    away or redundant.  Once this is identified then those are the jobs 
>    that need to be downsized.  It wouldn't make any sense to DOWNSIZE in 
>    your critical needs areas because you would only have to turn around 
>    and replace those positions, which causes more expenses (train, 
>    development, etc.) that the company can't afford.

To some of us, it seems just as logical to lose some of the people 
that want to go.   Granted there are expenses, but that has never 
stopped us - witness the plight of the recent COD trainees.   By 
losing people based only on their current job function, and not paying 
any attention to their skill set and other factors, we are definately 
losing a lot of the wrong people, IMHO.    

    
    In response to .4;
    
    Each time our group went through the TFSO (twice now) the management
    team spent a heck of a lot of time on determining critical work. As a
    manager during one of those and a consultant during the other I believe
    they did their best to be fair about the entire process.
    
    I know of several people who went in the last round who had make it
    pretty clear they were willing candidates. Not all managers look at it
    as a positive thing (hasn't it been said in this conference that you
    should just leave if you really want to go?) for someone to stand up
    and volunteer.
    
    I'd say to the .0 noter to simply keep trying but don't forget that the
    whole idea is to keep the right skillsets and not just get rid of
    bodies. Yea, it's been screwed up in spots but that's still the idea
    and from what I've seen it hasn't been *that* far off base.
    
    -Ray
    

    I hear of good people being let go. I hear of people that do not want
    to go, being let go. All the employees that I hear being tapped are not
    from the Upper Management or the VP's. When is the purge going to
    happen there. These are the people that could save the company some
    money!!
    I cannot believe that I have to work here and sit on a broken chair
    because we only have sooo many and we cannot afford, are not allowed to
    buy another chair.!! Ha!
    Greetings to all 
    Ruth

    I've talked to a few folks who WANT the package & would be happy to
    depart under those circumstances.  However, their management structure
    has indicated to their particular groups as a whole that they are very
    well thought of in the company and there would be no reductions through
    the TSFO process.
    
    My opinion is that these managers want to 1).  insure they maintain
    their headcount levels to justify their budgets & positions, and 2).
    insure they are preceived as keeping their word to their group that
    there would be no reductions.
    
    Mark
    
    

    re: .3 and theory
    
    There are just too many stories of people who had (1) high job
    performance as recognized by peers and managers, (2) had appropriate
    skill sets, (3) had assignments that were not redundant, and were
    nevertheless terminated...
    
    to make one believe that (1) the announced policies are not being
    uniformly applied, (2) the supervision of the managers involved in the
    selection process is inadequate, and therefore (3) that the process is
    _not_ selecting poor performers, the inappropriately skilled, in
    redundant jobs...
    
    so a "volunteer" might as well get the package as not.  What's the big
    deal?
    
    In "theory", once a person has been told that they will be terminated
    because their "assignment" is redundant, you might want to change jobs,
    give the person your non-redundant job, and then you'd have the
    "assignment" that makes you eligible for the package.

    Let me report on the visible results of our three TFSO programs in
    Puerto Rico. We were, in fact, the first part of the company to
    downsize, in 1986.  Our first effort was very much in the mold of what
    you have seen in the states.  We identified jobs that were no longer
    necessary and offered the TFSO to the incumbents.  The last two have
    been voluntary with exclusions.  All have included early retirement as
    an option.
    
    Comments:
    
    1) The first program, like many first time anythings, had a few bugs. 
    There were accusations of favoritism, short-sightedness, and
    psychological pressure.  A lawsuit was filed (and lost) by a group of
    ex-employees.  
    
    2) The second program was last year.  Most of the volunteers were
    hourly, not salaried employees.  Few managers left.  But... there were
    more volunteers than we could afford.  So the last four digits of
    social security numbers were used as the tie breakers.  Everyone was
    expecting downsizing to become a routine like budgets.  Many expected
    to see the entire operation closed down.
    
    3) This year's program had quotas for different employee
    classifications, hourly direct, hourly indirect, non-managerial
    exempts, managers.  We met all the quotas to within a few percent. 
    Half of the staff of the general manager left.
    
    4) Where are we after three rounds?  I believe that many tired,
    unmotivated, fearful, change-resistent people have left along with some
    dynamic and productive people.  We have faster reflexes, are
    simplifying the work even further, and I see a return to the "Just tell
    me what you need for me to do" spirit that I had been missing for some
    years.
    
    5) My personal perspective has changed.  I used to be one of our
    biggest critics.  I now have expectations that we will emerge "lean and
    mean" and very effective in whatever future we decide to make for
    ourselves.
    
    Yours for silver linings,
    
    Dick

Re:                  <<< Note 1549.4 by BUSY::BELLIVEAU >>>

>			In a group I previously worked in, when we had 
>"the meeting" to explain the package and who was eligable, there were 
>at least 5 levels of management present...

Therein lies a good part of this whole problem.  5 levels of management in one
meeting? 

-  David

    It's happening right now on a business by business basis.  
    Which translates into PURE politics.  If your business is well 
    connected, your're safe.  I'm hearing some REALLY horrible 
    stories of some of the truly excellent people DEC is losing
    that I absolutely cannot stomach..including stellar 
    software people who were specifically exempted from the
    taking the last "voluntary" buyout. 
    
    WHAT-IN-THE-HELL-IS-GOING-ON??????
    
    The word I am hearing that you can petition for the buyout.
    I know of some who did and got it.  The rumor I 
    heard last time was that if you wanted the buyout, and
    were refused, Jack wanted to know who refused you and that
    they'd be gone *without* a buyout.....strictly rumor though.
    I'd say start your campaign push it as hard as you can. 
    1.1 billion is a lot of buyout money, and they're definitely
    going to spend it.
    
    Good Luck,
    
    Mark

    Why can't the Corporation do something like this:
    
    1. Tell an employee that their position will be going within X weeks
    and that the person in that job will get the package.
    
    2. Allow the position to be deleted to have a req put out on it with
    the understanding that whomever has the position will get the package.
    
    3. Allow some other employee to swap positions under conditions that
    the package amount will not be increased and the manager of the
    non-transitioning position agrees.  Thus, the original person that
    would have been offered the package will need to interview for the new
    position.  The salary will stay the same or be less for the new
    position.
    
    4. Allow the new employee taking the transitioned job to go with the
    package.
    
    This has advantages of costing the company very little since we're
    talking alimination of jobs and not "promotions".  At the same time,
    if one employee is "cream of the crop" and wants to stay, and another
    is "just an average performer" and wants to leave then Digital can
    satisfy the desires of both while increasing the quality of its
    workforce.  Everybody wins.
    
    Steve

    	re .12
    
    	But what if the person who wants to stat is the "average performer"
    	and the person who wants to go is the "cream of the crop?"
    
    	Then the manager who had the star performer will be left with
    	an average performer.
    
    	Your idea has merit, but it is not that simple.
    
    	Joe Oppelt
    
    	PS:  I can see it now -- a black market for TSFO positions!

    Most of the people I know who have expressed an interest in getting the
    package are no longer happy or satisfied with their jobs for whatever
    reasons.  How much "quality" work can a company expect from an unhappy
    employee??
    
    DEC will either pay now (make the package voluntary and let unhappy
    people go) or pay later (keep them around and they become less and less
    productive).  
    
    Unhappy employees tend to spend less time working and more time wasting
    other peoples time (who want to work) by going around talking to anyone
    who will listen.  These people are still getting paid for 40 hours of
    work and they spend 25 of it doing NOTHING!!!!  Not good for company
    moral right now.  Anyone else notice this happening more and more???
    
    Someone expressed it rather well the other day, he said "Its as if we 
    are on death row just waiting for "the tap".  When it hits your co-worker 
    you are secretly relieved it was not you but you are also angry that it was
    him/her.  Just as you begin to settle down the anxiety starts
    building up all over again when it comes time for the "next tap" ...
    how many "taps" can one live through without loosing the desire to go
    on?  What kind of mental shape will the final count be in when this is
    all over?  How long will they suffer the aftermath of tap shock
    anxiety?"  If only the entire DEC population was given a single message
    at the same time from a single reliable person that states the
    down/right sizing process and keep us updated................ we
    shouldn't have to resort to notes files and rumor mills to try and find
    out what is going on.
      
    
    OR - Keeping the faith and doing my job in DC
    

In my original note .0, I didn't go into detail concerning my current
work environment, however I now feel is important to add.

My situation is ...  The group I work for is no longer being funded and
we are being picked up/absorbed by another.  Both the old group and new
group belong under the same big umbrella organization (approx. 1800 employees)

The people in my old group (including myself) were assigned positions in
the new group.  Some are a match in terms of skill sets and some are not.
Mine is not.   The news came as a shock to all of us.  Our group was going
away ... yet they assured us we all have jobs.

Don't get me wrong,...it's not that we don't appreciate the fact that our
old management secured positions for us.  The problem is we never had any
options.  We were basically told "you will be working for so-&-so and your
start date is _____.

We have met with the new managers and they explained what we would be doing
in our new positions.  Some of us are mismatched, yet they are forcing us
to go work in the group anyway.  When I brought this up to my old management,
I was given the runaround.  I then contacted Personnel who is basically 
washing their hands of the situation.  I'm steamed over this.  I have been
rated a #1 performer and have always been dedicated to my job.  However, 
stick me in a position that I'm not qualified to do, I will become a poor
performer.  I was even told by two of the new managers that I spoke with
that my skills and the new position appeared to be a mismatch.  Now, they've
changed their minds.

When I asked "Why we weren't given an option to look for a job that WE know
we are qualified for"?  The answer was "Management cannot afford to pay for
you to look for a new job 8 hours a day. ... you'll have to discuss that
situation with your new manager. ... no one said you can't look for a job,
but you'll have to do in between working your new job".

Almost 10 people have called Personnel on this matter and they're siding with
management ... as expected.

Two of us have asked for the package and were told that "your new group has
not been targeted/chosen to rec'v the package, therefore you're not eligible".
"You have skills that this company needs, therefore you're not eligible".

I really don't want to leave the company, but I'd rather take the package
then do a job that I'm not skilled to do.

    re: .13
    
    That's not a problem.  The manger of the person whose job is secure may
    overrule having the swap.  Remember, the guy whose job is being
    eliminated needs to interview for the swap position.  The manager needs
    to determine if this guy/gal will be as good as or better than the
    current person filling the position who wants to swap.  The main
    feature here is that of creating a req for a position that will be
    eliminated so that the person taking it will get the package.  If the
    manager of the still-secure position has a "cream of the crop" person
    that wants to go and is faced with bringing in a poor performer it is
    his or her option to turn down the deal.
    
    Steve

    Re .15
    
    To Mr/Ms. Anonymous Noter,
    
    If you don't like the job you've been given then:
    
    	a) Find one you do want. Try VTX JOBS or the JOBS notesfile
    	or
    	b) Resign and find an employer who you do want to work for.
    
    Either is better than bitching and moaning in this notesfile
    anonymously.
    
    Dave

I have to agree with .17

If people are in the wrong jobs, it may be management's fault and the employee
may be getting all the risk. It may also be terrible that the responsible
mamagement isn't held accountable for those actions. However, moaning about it
won't change an unfair situation. Take charge of your own career and make some
hard decisions. Wailing that Digital should give you the "package" so you can
have funds to find something else is trying to put the onus of your lack of
decisiveness on Digital. If your performance drops below the threshold of
acceptable, you should be on the street without a "package" regardless of the
causes. That's reality.

-Terry

    Where is it written that the "Company Owes You?" In todays economics we
    can be grateful that we have a job. Those that don't, got a package
    which is way above-and-beyond the norm. Even if we now get laid off
    without a package, the company doesn't owe us. We work, they pay.
    Business is business and it's cold. 
    
    I'm not saying the above is desirable but it's reality in the business
    world. 
    
    

    The company expects to be treated with equity by employees.
    In return, the employees expect to be treated with equity.
    
    To a rational person on the outside, it seems that for equivalently
    skilled people, it doesn't make sense to retain the employee who would
    leave if �offerred the package, and to terminate the employee who would
    rather stay.
    
    You can't just wave your hand over that and other manifest errors in
    how this process was planned and executed with "You're lucky to have a
    job".  Digital needs employees who don't "need" a job at Digital, but
    people who would be excellent employees in any company.

    I don't agree with .17-.19 AT ALL!!!  It's precisely that "whatever is,
    is right", maximus gluteus kissing, pusillanimous "bravado" that's
    leading us right down the tubes.  If enough of us adopt that attitude,
    we'll make the Japanese very happy, because it's just the right
    attitude in their competitors to give them very fertile ground in the
    marketplace.  And have no doubts, the Japanese are planning to get
    our lunch.
    
    There IS a right and a wrong, a good and a bad.  "Whatever is" is not
    always right.  When we loose sight of these basics, we loose all the 
    advantages Digital ever had.
    
    For the first time in 7 years, after being in a Digital position over 6
    months I still like my job & manager - and still believe I can help
    Digital from the position I hold.  I've taken a substantial cut in
    income and increased my commute by over 6 times to take this job - so I
    really mean what I say and do care about Digital - too much to let
    those in the "whatever is, is right" camp prevail.

    Greetings
    
    I guess its about time for me to chime in and solve this problem
    once and for all;-)
    
    1. I agree with the thinking don't kill the messenger. Since I've
    been here at DEC I've seen NOTHING but open communication to any
    ideas that I've had that are contraversial. 
    
    2.  Whoever the person is that wants the darned package so much ought
    to just  go ahead and quit. If I were that person I would go ahead and 
    interview with the realization that its significantly easier to  find a
    job when you have a job than while being layed off. I also don't 
    think that for as lovely as the package is unemployment is awful and
    the money can't make up for a job. In ecomonics there's a term called
    oportunity cost and the package helps to lessen the impact on the layed
    off person but nothing will make up for the X months of not having a
    job.
    
    3. My fondest hope is that everyone who is to be layed off will be
    layed off and soon! I do installs for our branch and have recently had
    several installs that had one or more of the salespersons that sold the 
    system get the package. It isn't fun to listen to the people who
    actually invest thier money in our products and listen to us talk about
    layoffs ect. I particularly get iritated about employees who as this
    base-note said they would like to be layed-off. My fondest hope is that
    this person isn't doing anything that will effect me or the customer
    that I have to work with. 
    
    4. For all the negative stuff this conference seems to have to say
    about the direction of our company, which by the way I've seen ever
    since 1987 when stock was selling at $200.00 and our best product was
    the 8800, most of the customers I've talked to aren't severly disuaded
    away from us. Odd, I wouldn't by a bike from a company that just lost a
    significant amount of money.  My only answer is that we still make and
    deliver a terrific products, yah yah yah I know PC's are better and
    RISC based stuff is better and EVERYONE is cheaper and we are confusing
    and complicated to do buisness with and the 8840 was too expensive and
    SUN has a better workstation and on and on and on. With all that kind
    of things being said in the marketplace people who bet their companies
    money on our products and their reputation on a recommendation of us
    still stay with DEC. Also most of these companies have gone through
    tough times and they can relate with how disruptive it is for DEC.
    
    5. Finally I've seen alot of deadwood being given the package. The sad
    thing is to say that and realize that those people who are deadwood
    have friends who don't want to hear it. They want to believe that the
    person was unfairly chosen well I've known some who haven't gotten the
    package who should but most that I've seen who did get it weren't doing
    much and expected it. I still would have been trying to get a job ahead
    of time however if it were me. 
    
    Fred Mudgett

    RE  just quit...
    
    A voluntary buyout was offered widely through DEC last winter.
    A great number of people were not informed about, or given the 
    opportunity to take it, in some cases because of truly critical 
    skills, in others just megalomaniacs hugging their turf which is 
    measured in more heads.
    
    .0 and others probably wouldn't feel the way they do if the 
    buyout was in fact offered to everybody.
    
    Fair is Fair.  This company goes to great lengths to be 
    equitable in other areas that are TRIVIAL in comparison 
    to this, so I don't want to hear about DEC and the cold 
    cruel world.
    
    If a person wasn't given the opportunity to take the last 
    buyout, they should have the chance now. Period. 
    
    Mark

    re .23
    
    Right On!

    RE: .22, If you really believe what you're saying, I'd feel sorry for           
             you. But I think, rather that it's just wishful thinking and I         
             do not blame you for that. 
    
    Gloom and Doom, and it's documented!  

    I agree with you all the way!  I also want the package and have asked
    for it three times.  The way things are going I think I might get it
    within the next 6 to 12 months, my guess is "they" whoever they are
    want to get down to 75 to 90k.  Maybe I will be one of the fortunate
    ones to get the package.  I am looking forward to a change.
    
    regards,

    .11 
    
    I like your advice!  That is exactly what I have been doing.  As I was
    creating .26 memo a fellow Digital employee informed me that within the
    next two months we are to be hit hard.  I hope so, this is exactly what
    I want!  I extend compassion and empathy to the rest of the people who
    want to keep their jobs at Digital.  I want the buyout and to move on,
    I have been with the company for almost 14 years.  
    
    regards,

re: POBOX::PESZEK "SHEREE DIMALINE PESZEK"

>>  next two months we are to be hit hard.  I hope so, this is exactly what
>>  I want!

SET FLAG/DISGUST=ON

	Well, Sheree, I hope you get a package.  However, I hope it is not
	as generous as those that have had to take it involuntarily.

	I believe that when one works for a company, that person should do
	all within their power and capability to do as much as possible
	to make that company profitable.  You're attitude about wanting to
	get out of the company but only if they pay you to leave finally
	got to me, particularly your statement that I highlighted from
	your previous response.

	Has the company not paid you equitably for the past 14 years?  Have
	they not provided reasonable medical, dental, etc benefits?  There
	evidently was *something* that kept you here for 14 years!  Oh,
	I see, it was only how much money you could get out of Digital, not
	what you could do for Digital or the customers you have faithfully
	(I hope) supported over the years.

	Your avarice is showing, and it is not a pleasant sight. I can wish
	you no fond farewells as I did the others.  Quit trying to take as
	much as you can get.  It disgusts me to see people with your
	attitude get *anything* from Digital when they leave.

Tim Cerling

    My site is gearing up for another downsizing, and it looks like I may
    get the tap on the shoulder.  Do I want it ?  I'll take it - I've got
    in 8+ years, so my buyout will be much better than pat on the back. 
    But what I would *really* love to do is stay and work for a profitable
    company.  -2 sparked my emotions a bit too.  If DEC were to give me a 2
    month notice and my vacation pay, I couldn't really ask for more.  The
    thing that irks me is seeing people sit around being non-productive
    weaiting for the package to fall in their lap.  Now, I'm not saying
    that -2 is that type of person, but DEC is packed full of them right
    now.  I'd love to be able to weather the storm, but ...
    
    Jerry

    My wife asked me what the purpose of the package was.  I guessed there
    are several.  One is so that the company can show some consideration so
    that those who will need to look for a new job can have a little
    support in doing so.  This way, if the company should want them back 
    there will be no hard feelings.  Another is for the benefit of those
    that remain.  There is implied assurance that they too will have some
    consideration rendered should hard times befall them.  Then, there is
    the issue of looking good for the public so that the public is willing
    to buy from the company.  And, there are the stockholders who want to
    see some assurance that steps are being taken towards a profitable
    future.
    
    With all this in mind, how does one react to someone that actually
    wants to get the package?  Are they traitors or saints?  Traitors
    because they want to profit from the company's straits?  Saints because
    they have the guts to actually volunteer to take severance?  I don't
    think it really matters if one considers at face value the reason for
    giving anyone the package; that the company thinks it would run better
    without their job.  Once it has been determined that a person's job is
    no longer needed then the willingness of the person holding it to
    accept the package doesn't matter as far as whether or not the package 
    should be offered.  What matters more is how that person is treated
    when offered the package, for the above mentioned reasons.
    
    I do feel that if someone really wants the package and has a useful job
    they should change over to a job more likely to get the package.  Those
    who perform poorly in order to "qualify" for the package or who badger
    their bosses into giving them the package for a job that is not being
    eliminated are less than honest.  I suspect that for them there could
    even be grounds for termination without the package.  This attitude
    certainly flies in the face of the reasons for a company to offer such
    compensation.
                                                             
    Steve

    I don't buy this sanctimonious crap that people 
    who want the buyout are some kind of non-productive
    leeches waiting to screw the company, although 
    there must be a few.
    
    DEC wants to downsize.  When the last buyout was offered 
    it was offered *voluntarily* and the reason it was offered
    I remember was described as an *opportunity*.  
    
    No less an *opportunity* than "Engineers into Education" 
    or do some people see these engineers as parasites who want 
    to get their teacher's certificate by sponging off of DEC, 
    and get one years salary. Here's what they get per VTX...
                              
      - a Lump Sum Financial Support Payment equal to one year (52 weeks)
        of salary
      - Tuition Support of up to $13,000, for up to two years, for an
        approved program of study at an accredited college or university, 
        that prepares participants for new teaching careers in mathematics, 
        physics chemistry, computer science, or engineering 
        (plus a one time Miscellaneou Education  
        Expense Payment of $2500 to cover books and fees),      
      - continuation of medical, dental, and life insurance coverage for a
        period  of one year,     
      - limited acceleration of restrictions for Restricted Stock Options 
        for  persons who are eligible.    
          
    I don't think anybody should feel guilty about taking 
    an *opportunity* that is offered *voluntarily* and is described
    as such by Digital.
      
    Mark
    

    .28
    
    
    You made a lot of judgements, who do you think you are?  You don't know
    me at all.  I could express many things to you at this time, but I
    chose not too.  A person can think whatever they want to, it does not
    make it true at all.  Be careful what you express to others, because
    you are making a fool of yourself by assuming/presumptuous.
    
    regards,   :^)

    If someone wants to leave Digital, they can, and should, leave. There's
    no reason why Digital should give such a person money that could
    otherwise be invested in the business.
    
    Reading some of the replies here, one of the many bad effects of the
    current climate is that there are people who have in their minds
    already left, but haven't handed in their letter because they hope to
    get paid to leave.
    
    I don't know of a good solution to this. Offerring the package to
    everyone, including those whose skills we most need, doesn't seem good
    to me. Neither does reducing the package given to people who have
    served Digital loyally, but are to be "let go".
    
    I wish I could believe that Digital will get to a point at which they
    can say to those who are left: "There will be no packages for another
    nine months at least. Those who want to be here can stop worrying about
    packages and get on with the job. Those who don't should leave now,
    rather than wait any more."
    
    	Andrew.

    .31          "right on!"
    
    I support your answer, it was full of wisdom.  Getting closer to the
    real truth about this whole matter of Digital's cutbacks is
    interesting.  Regarding the package, when I want something I ask for
    it, that's the first step!  Regarding daily work for Digital, honesty
    is the best policy to me!  It has been stated and is true, to desire
    the package and do your job well until it is given to you (if it ever
    is) is happening all over the company.  Many of us are good and honest
    workers, Digital has given us good salarys over the years (some), since
    Digital offers this package, we are not fools or dishonest, we gladly
    accept.  What are we doing while we are still here at Digital.  Quality
    work, we would do that for any company we work for, because that is the
    way we are.  (look up the word character, some people have it some
    don't)
    
    regards,  ;^)  
    
    In reading some of these notes it appeared to me that maybe some people
    are answering these notes hoping their answer would appear perfect
    (whatever they thought perfect was), I notice this from their attitude.  
    In summary, so they could keep their job (maybe someone inportant would
    see their answer and that it was what they thought was perfect)?  What a 
    strange thought, would it actually be possible something like that could 
    or has occurred?  Some of these notes make me wonder.  
    (a penny for your thoughts)
    
     ;^) 
    
    regards,

    	Just a warning to those who feel the need to push it (i.e.
    asking for the package, etc.), after the first round of TFSO's
    hit my organization (Telecom & Networks) earlier this spring, it
    was later announced by my management that those who deserved a
    package were given one, and the rest (those considered non-performers)
    were simply shown the door - period!!!

    	I'm a little surprised I haven't heard about other organizations
    handling the TFSO in this way as well (or maybe they have been and
    nobody is the wiser?).  I'm also not sure how they figure they can
    get away with this sort of action without worry of lawsuits, etc.

    	As far as my opinion on this whole thing, well, I am a working
    stiff with a wife and a kid who isn't in much of a position to bitch
    or moan about anything, but on top of that, I really happen to love
    the job I'm doing right now (X-window interface development for the
    DECmcc network management software product), so I'm relatively happy
    here at old DEC and would hate to see anything pink floating my way 
    regardless of what sort of package it comes in.

    				    -davo

p.s.	 Besides, this is nothing - I'm from Iowa where any work is good work.

    With responses like .28, no wonder some people feel
    a need to enter anonomous notes.....
    
    

    Well, if you didn't like .28, you'll probably not like this either.
    With the exception of the very last paragraph, there wasn't anything in
    .28 which doesn't accurately capture the sentiments of most thinking
    DEC employees.

    For an individual to openly prattle on in a world-wide conference about 
    how they want the package is AT BEST unseemly.  Quite frankly, I
    (and I presume 99.999% of the other readers) don't give a shit.  Before
    people expose themselves (figuratively speaking...) in such a manner,
    they should ask themselves two questions:  1) Who in HUMAN::DIGITAL is
    going to care? and 2) Who in HUMAN::DIGITAL is going to do something
    about it?  If they answer to either question is no one, please feel
    free to share your fantasies elsewhere.

    More important, however, is that the behavior exhibited here is really
    near the pinnacle of poor taste.  I believe that most of the folks who 
    read this conference really want their jobs and really care about
    Digital.  Many are truly fearful of losing their jobs.  How can anyone
    with an ounce of sensitivity enthusiastically hope that their group gets
    hit hard.  Unless you are the only one left, people are likely to be
    hurt in such a situation and it will be little consolation to them that
    you are so happy.

    If Digital is to survive this undertaking, the process used to select
    individuals for separation must clinically and reliably choose only
    those people who are the least critical to our success.  That is the
    only process which is fair to Digital, its employees, its customers 
    and its shareholders.  

    There is nothing inherently wrong with preparing for and welcoming the 
    possibilities of an involuntary change in careers.  There is nothing
    inherently wrong with sharing those thoughts with your family, manager, 
    friends and close associates.

    Blabbing them out to the world, however, shows an incredible lapse of
    judgment and common sense.

    Al

    you humor me!   As of this date, the notes file is till open to
    comments, yours or mine, freedom of choice!  Not everyone agrees with
    you, do you really understand that.  In addition, lets not waste
    peoples time with this type of stuff, most of us would rather read much
    more interesting comments, even if they start out simple and grow. {;^)
    
    Freedom is enjoyed here in the notes to a certain degree, lets keep it
    that way.  It does supprise me that you think most Digital people think
    the same way you do.  Please do not take this as an offence.
    
    regards,

    Re .28:
    
    > 	I believe that when one works for a company, that person should do
    >	all within their power and capability to do as much as possible
    >	to make that company profitable.
    
    All be silent and bow now for the Almighty Corporation.  Be respectful
    and fearful for the omnipotent Company, for ye are but sheep brought in
    this world to serve.  Fear not, for the Company is your shepherd.
    
    Baloney.  A "company" is not a special entity to which a person owes
    special favors.  Employees are not slaves who owe their all to their
    master.  An employee-employer relationship is a trade:  Pay for work,
    work for pay.
    
    I will offer Digital this arrangement:  I will do all within my power
    and capability to make Digital profitable if Digital does all within
    its power and capability to pay me (whether via money or other
    compensation).
    
    Digital does not do that.  It only pays its employees average market
    rates, if that.  And what Digital can expect for average pay is average
    work.
    
    Employees owe no special favors to a company, particularly one that
    does not value its employees.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    The highest paid executives of major corporations have employment
    contracts, one notable perq of which is the "golden parachute."  This
    stipulates all kind of goodies for the executive, should he receive
    an untimely an involuntary order to resign.  I don't know about
    Digital's policies in this regard, but such contracts are routinely
    approved by Boards of Directors.
    
    When these execs sign the contract, they're not accused of putting
    themselves before the company, and only looking out for what they
    could get from the company.  It's just a routine and possibly
    lucrative cushion for the future.  
    
    Just as these executives look out for themselves, so do individual
    contributors.  They differ in scale, if not in kind.
    
    		Dave

    Re .39 "Digital deserves average work for average pay"
    
    As a manager of a group doing it's best to make this company profitable
    and competitive, I find .39 repulsive.
    
    

    
    re: .41   <<< "I find .39 repulsive" >>>
    
    
    me too.  Unfortunately, I've seen this before.  I once worked for a 
    company that, because of a business down-turn, required everyone to
    take a temporary 15% paycut.  The attitude of many in the company
    then became, "screw them.  If they're gonna pay me 15% less, I'll
    work 15% less".  The company was effectively gone less than a year
    later.
    
    Marc

    Re .41, .42:
    
    If you find .39 repulsive, then you reject the notion Digital gets from
    its employees what it puts into them.  You have rejected the notion
    that Digital should value its employees.  You are expecting more from
    the employees then you deserve.
    
    Digital created this situation; I wasn't down on Digital a few years
    ago.  Digital has fallen down repeatedly when it comes to sharing
    success with employees, recognizing performance, being honest and
    communicative, and more.
    
    The attitude that the company is more important than the employee is
    repulsive.  Yes, employees should try to make the company profitable,
    but can anybody give me one HUMAN reason why the company's profit
    should be placed ahead of the value of employees as human beings?
    
    	Historically, is the company more important than human life?
    	
    	Socially, is the company more important than the people comprising it?
    	
    	Does the company live, breathe, enjoy life, produce art, or
    	otherwise have a soul anywhere near as valuable as those
    	of its employees?
    
    Why should any human being do "all" within their power for an unliving
    THING?  Why should any human being suffer in their privacy, social
    life, or stress and health for the sake of a corporation?
    
    So, you think .39 is repulsive.  Tell me then what makes the company
    more important than people.  What values are these?
    
    When Digital, or any representative thereof, acts like loyalty or an
    employee's "all" are something the company DESERVES, then the company
    has made a serious mistake.  If one (or a company) treats a person
    well, the power of loyalty and compassion that returns can be very
    strong.  I am sure that employee loyalty is something Digital wants,
    but Digital cannot get loyalty by thinking Digital deserves it and
    doling out paychecks as if the company could buy loyalty.
    
    If Digital wants to get back on the right track, then throw out the
    notion that the company DESERVES anything special from its employees. 
    The company has to EARN the extra effort it desires, and it has to earn
    that by showing employees that the company values them.  That
    demonstration of value does not even have to mean money (although it
    ought to when the company is doing well -- after asking employees to
    stick with Digital through hard times, the company now owes it to share
    with them in good times) -- the demonstration of value ought to start
    with honesty and concern.
    
    When Ken Olsen told the VMS group earlier this summer that Digital did
    not have layoffs, we were only improving efficiency, then Digital
    proved it did not value its employees.  Not even enough to be honest
    about something every employee knows anyway.
    
    
    				-- edp

    RE:35
    
        If what you stated is correct regarding your management stating
        giving the package to "deserving" employees and none to "non-deserving" 
        ones. Then your management is LYING to you and your group and
        moreover using Gestapo tactics to discourage package soliciting!
        However, if what management says has happened, I see some very rich
        ex-Decies enjoying their lawsuit compensations!
    
        I will bet my money that your management is LYING!
              

    So where do we start to make a change ?  If the company pays you more,
    will you do more work, or do you feel that you had it coming already
    and sit on your hands ?  The company gets nothing more for it's
    investment.  If you work smarter/harder for the company and DON'T
    receive any compensation, do you stop going the extra mile ?  Pride
    in your work usually doesn't have a dollar value placed upon it, but I
    do feel that in time, it will be rewarded.  And that doesn't always
    mean that it will be rewarded by DEC.  You as a person will reap the
    rewards, and you can take that to any job in the future.
    
    My site is in the midst of a downsizing .... I see 2 groups of people
    emerging ...
    
    A -  one group is trying to hustle to become more visable, more valuable,
         more `necessary'.
    B -  the other group is acting as if they know their job is going away,
         and are waiting for official notification, figuring up how much they
         will net after taxes ...
    
    The `A' group should have been doing this all along.  But it's too
    little too late.  The damage has already been done.  They should have
    been paddling that hard BEFORE the ship sprung a leak.
    
    The `B' group is slowly getting larger as the `A' group faces the
    reality that the hard work they're doing now is not being noticed and
    will not affect the blood letting process.  
    
    The hard part will be convincing the remainder of the work force that
    the changes were made in order to become more profitable ... which is
    good for them.  And that with the new structure should come new ideas
    with a positive message.  
    
    Jerry 
          

    RE:41
    
       Please check your spelling before submitting, as a manager, you 
       should be a mentor, advisor and example to your reports. We all
       make spelling errors, however I make sure and check twice before
       submitting. Please do not take it personally, this conference is
       loaded with poor grammar, and worse, spelling errors. It can't be
       that hard, in 1978, I could not speak, read or write English.
      
    
    RE:37
    
       Well Put! .... or is it well said?

    re .45
    
    If the company pays me more, and treats me badly, I will definitely NOT
    sit on my hands.  I will devote time that I might otherwise spend
    solving problems to updating my resume and improving skills that might
    not benefit my current job, but will help me in my next.  As you so
    nicely point out, it will be outside Digital if I feel that the company
    does not return the same loyalty to ME that I expect from it!  Pride in
    my work means doing a good job - and doing it elsewhere if I feel it is
    isn't supported or valued where I am.
    
    Companies and managers that act as if the only reward were financial
    and the only considerations are economic will get ONLY the loyalty that 
    money can buy!  I as a person will feel absolutely NO obligation beyond
    financial to that kind of company or manager.
    
    /Dave

                     <<< Note 1549.46 by RAVEN1::DJENNAS >>>
                                    -< ex >-

    >RE:41
    >
    >   Please check your spelling before submitting, as a manager, you 
    >   should be a mentor, advisor and example to your reports. We all
    >   make spelling errors, however I make sure and check twice before
    >   submitting. Please do not take it personally, this conference is
    >   loaded with poor grammar, and worse, spelling errors. It can't be
    >   that hard, in 1978, I could not speak, read or write English.
    
    Its a pity you didnt learn a sense of proportion at the same time you 
    learnt the language. Some people buy records to listen to the music,
    others buy them to get upset at the scratches. I dont agree with
    what the writer of .41 says but we all come from different backgrounds
    and cultures with different colloquialisms, dialects. By the way, which
    version of English did you learn? And no, I'm not going to check my
    spelling, grammar, tense, person, fly or anything else before
    submitting this.
    
    John

    The first package was not offered to anyone in the corporation that
    wanted it.  It was offered only in organizations that needed to be
    downsized or were being eliminated or merged.  There was never a
    situation in DEC when anyone could step forward and ask for the
    package.  It was voluntary in the sense that if you were asked, you
    could refuse,

    re -1
    
    
    >   downsized or were being eliminated or merged.  There was never a 
    >   situation in DEC when anyone could step forward and ask for the  
    
    no-no-no.
    
    TFSO2 WAS voluntary in some places, at least it was in the 
    U.S. Manufacturing  Engineering, Technology, and Quality Group 
    under Bill Kent. Certain Software job codes were exempt though 
    in areas considered critical. I was allowed to volunteer but didn't.
    Sooo,,,I can't complain if I don't get the opportunity again. 
    I can dig up the memo if you don't believe me. 
    
    If you hadn't heard of the this, and the option wasn't 
    offered where you are, it actually reinforces my point.
    
    Mark
    

    Re .45:
    
    > So where do we start to make a change ?
    
    I indicated that in my note:  Valuing employees.  Digital needs to
    start with honesty and communication, and then it needs to demonstrate
    that Digital is aware of the value of its employees.
    
    When the matter comes to pay and performance, employees have already
    extended credit to Digital.  In spite of that, Digital can still draw
    on more credit, if it makes an honest effort to change.  For example,
    if Digital implements pay for performance and CONVINCES employees that
    they WILL be rewarded for good performance and they WILL share in the
    company's success as a reward for their work and for their bearing with
    the company in hard times, then employees will work harder and better
    for Digital just on the expectation of deserved reward.
    
    How Digital can do that convincing I don't know.
    
    > Pride in your work usually doesn't have a dollar value placed upon
    > it, but I do feel that in time, it will be rewarded.
    
    Pride in one's work is nothing special at Digital -- it doesn't give
    the company any extra edge over other companies that will yield extra
    effort from its employees.  And it is certainly hard to have pride in
    one's work when Digital is always making the wrong decision -- do it
    the shoddy way because there's no time to do it right.  Digital is a
    decade behind in software engineering techniques because the company
    keeps deciding to hack away in the short term instead of designing for
    the long term.
    
    > If you work smarter/harder for the company and DON'T receive any
    > compensation, do you stop going the extra mile ?
    
    For how much time should I go extra miles without compensation?  Digital
    is not worth it.  Pride in one's work is fine, but work is not the
    do-all, be-all, and end-all of life.  If a person is seeking pride or
    fulfillment, there are areas outside of work that provide better
    returns than a company that doesn't care about its employees:  art,
    knowledge, love.  Why should any employee put a company that doesn't
    care about them ahead of the other things in their life?
    
    I ask again:  Why is Digital more important than employees?
    
    
    				-- edp

re: "I ask again:  Why is Digital more important than employees?"

Perhaps if you consider that "Digital" and its emplyees are one and the same,
the "us vs. them" mentality that is currently doing nothing to improve
conditions or performance will begin to erode and (hopefully) disappear.

Sure, there are other things in life and everyone enjoys the right to pursue
*and to prioritize* them individually.  My career is not my first priority, but
many of my other priorities depend on it, and I think it assumes its proper
relative position on my list depending on what I'm about at the time.

There are many articles/classes/seminars/consultants dealing with "teamwork"
and how effective teams are formed.  One of the tenets they proffer (which
surprised me, since I thought such a belief was self-evident) is that it's O.K.
to operate in an "us vs. them" mode, but don't try to team-build at the same
time - you'll be wasting your time.

Pete

    .43
    
    You are getting so close to reality, you are hot!  You have my support
    in most of your comments...like 99.5%.
    
    

    RE: .50
    
    I see what you are saying now.  In your organization they asked for
    volunteers.  That was not the case everywhere and it wasn't designed to
    be a situation where anyone in DEC, who wanted to, could leave.  I
    don't believe that DEC has the obligation to offer everyone the
    opportunity to receive benefits to leave.  
    

    Re .52:
    
    > Perhaps if you consider that "Digital" and its emplyees are one and
    > the same, the "us vs. them" mentality that is currently doing nothing
    > to improve conditions or performance will begin to erode and
    > (hopefully) disappear.
    
    1) Digital and its employees are NOT one and the same.  For example,
       Digital delays raises when times are bad, but it does not speed
       them up when times are good.  It is a one-way street.  If Digital
       and its employees were one and the same, then it would not be
       possible to separate employees from sharing in success.
    
    2) The dogma that "us versus them" is bad is just an excuse to place
       the company ahead of the employees in importance.  It is supported
       by managers because it is good for the company, but it is not true.
    
    > One of the tenets they proffer (which surprised me, since I thought
    > such a belief was self-evident) is that it's O.K. to operate in an "us
    > vs. them" mode, but don't try to team-build at the same time - you'll
    > be wasting your time.
    
    Bull.  Studies show that NATURAL teams form and continue on the basis
    of SELF interest.  Sparrows will eat in flocks because then each
    sparrow can spend less time watching for predators.  The group is
    beneficial because only a few sparrows at a time have to stop eating
    and look, so all the sparrows can spend more time eating.  But does the
    sparrow abandon "us versus them" to achieve this?  No.  If a sparrow
    finds food in many pieces, as in grains, the sparrow will make noises
    to call other sparrows to come share -- this is safer than the sparrow
    trying to eat all the grains by itself.  But if a sparrow finds a large
    piece of food, it will not call other sparrows to share.
    
    In a situation where people are willing to be partners and share,
    forming teams and maintaining self-interest are consistent, because
    nature is such that teams can work more efficiently than individuals,
    so EVERY INDIVIDUAL PROFITS from well-formed team.
    
    But if one of the members is greedy and wants more for themself or
    isn't willing to participate equitably, then the self-interest of the
    other persons is opposed to the team-building desires of the greedy
    member:  It is not good to form teams with a greedy member. 
    Self-interest and teamwork can go together -- but greed gets between
    the two.
    
    A company that expects employees' "all" in return for average pay is a
    greedy team member.  A good team is equitable to all and is nourished
    by self-interest.
    
    
    				-- edp

    EDP,
    From reading your notes,I definitely feel that you aren't very happy at
    DEC. I suggest you start perusing the "help wanted" ads in your local
    paper.
    
    Ken

We obviously disagree on many (if not all) points.  You don't think Digital and
its employees are one and the same, and I believe that one must buy into that
to maximize success for both.  You used management-bashing to dispute what to
me is an obvious truth, that people who should be working together shouldn't be
adversaries.  The business about the sparrows ... I missed that.  Besides, I
don't really care about sparrows.

So we reasonably disagree.  I have seen you NOTEing for a long time, and have
been both enlightened and humored by some of your contributions, but somehow
you now seem like an adversary.

Pete

    Hey, that sparrows analogy was dead right!  None of us are here at
    Digital except for our own self-interests.  How many of us would stay
    if Digital stopped paying us?  THAT's the real test of our own
    generosity towards the company ...  But, aknowledging that we all act in 
    our own self-interest helps us to apply the golden rule without
    hypocrisy.  No, not the "he who has the gold makes the rule" rule.  I 
    mean the rule that we treat others as we would like to be treated.  By
    recognizing that we act in our own self-interest, we can learn to accept
    and accomodate the self-interests of others.  Let everybody live by the 
    same rules in a way that we all can benefit.  As far as I am concerned,
    someone that denies that they operate in their own self-interests and
    then gets upset because their self-interests are not being met ...
    
    I completely agree with the observations regarding greed.  It has no
    place in a productive environment, though I suppose it's "good" for the
    stock market - at least in the short term.  ;^}
    
    Steve

    Re notes by EDP
    
    I'd like to say that I really appreciate your insight into what really
    drives people and what makes or breaks an organization. Unfortunately
    your notes on the surface read as if you are anti Digital and are
    dissatisfied. I pity the people that can't seem to look down beneath
    the surface of your notes.
    
    Sometimes the people that are the hardest to understand actually have
    the most valuable thing to say if only people could see it.
    
    Dave

    Re .56:
    
    > From reading your notes,I definitely feel that you aren't very happy at
    > DEC. I suggest you start perusing the "help wanted" ads in your local
    > paper.

    That's exactly the attitude I am fighting against, because it is going
    to hurt Digital.  If Digital thinks that people who aren't satisfied
    with Digital should leave, then people are going to leave.  (And the
    people who are most skilled and useful have the most incentive to leave
    and the easiest time doing so.)  An attitude like this is basically an
    attitude of greed and selfishness by Digital.  It is an anti-team
    attitude.
    
    Digital must realize that it is NOT special in the employer-employee
    relationship and that employees do NOT innately owe Digital favors and
    that teams ARE built because teams serve the self-interests of ALL team
    members.  If Digital operates with that attitude instead of the
    previous one, then it will realize that it must value its employees and
    must show them that they will be successful if Digital is successful.
    
    
    Re .57:
    
    > We obviously disagree on many (if not all) points.  You don't think
    > Digital and its employees are one and the same, and I believe that one
    > must buy into that to maximize success for both.
    
    Perhaps you are confusing two different things here -- "being one and
    the same" and "having common interests".  Digital and its employees are
    not one and the same.  That is a matter of physical fact.  Most of
    Digital's employees go home at night; Digital does not.  The stock
    price does not measure the value of employees.  If Digital goes
    bankrupt, most employees are not liable, and vice-versa.  Digital and
    its employees are separate entities.
    
    This is not to say they cannot have common interests.  Ideally, Digital
    and its employees would be tied together in the sense that success for
    one meant success for the other.  This would be beneficial for Digital
    because then Digital's employees would have incentive to improve
    Digital.  It would be beneficial for employees because Digital would
    have incentive to reward its employees.
    
    Currently, this bond is severed.  Digital severed it.  Most employees
    are willing to retie the bond.  It is up to Digital to join the team
    again.
    
    The analogy of the sparrows proves that teams can be formed of members
    who are seeking to serve their own self-interests.  That makes a natural
    team.  To some extent, the sparrows are adversaries.  But that doesn't
    prevent them from working as a team.
    
    > . . . an obvious truth, that people who should be working together
    > shouldn't be adversaries.
    
    I do not think that is true.  Less obvious, because it is a deeper
    truth, is the fact that adversarial goals are a part of the foundation
    of a team.  Obviously, the members of a team have formed the team to
    serve their common interests.  The sparrows, as a group, want food. 
    Digital and its employees, as a group, seek income.  But look deeper: 
    What keeps each member of the team on the team?  Each sparrow wants
    food for itself.  Digital's charter, its raison d'�tre, is to make
    money for itself.  Each employee joins the company to earn income.  The
    team serves the common interests of all, but each member joins to team
    for their own interests.  Without the interest of each member in
    themself, not in the team, nobody would have any reason to form a team.
    
    Digital must recognize its employees as partners, not as peons. 
    Failure to do so destroys morale; it destroys any reason for teamwork.
    
    
    				-- edp

    RE: .48
    
    Please keep your fly and such tasteless words out of this discussion,
    if you cannot converse without profanity, please restraint. As for
    which English version I learnt? I do not know, I was under the
    impression that there was ONE English language only with no versions.
    
    As a digital employee and a professional, the least I could do is write
    correctly and with NO spelling errors, if you cannot and choose not
    to do that, then you portray a rather poor picture of digital and its
    employees. I am sure that this is not your intent.
    
    FYI,    its : refers to a possession
    
            it's: refers to  either: it is,  or  it has.
    
    
    Peace!
    
    
    
    I agree with most of EDP's recent notes and no I am not anti-digital,
    though I am very unhappy with the management of our company and
    subsequent course. 
    I would like to add that the relationship between digital and its
    employees is based purely on business, profits and money making; how,
    you ask? simple: digital hires employees to produce a unit, this unit
    has a certain cost to digital ( materials, employees salary.....), then
    digital turns around and sells the unit at a profit. digital employees 
    do not share in these profits unlike some other companies. However if
    digital does'nt make a profit, then it reduces its resources and costs
    and that translates into layoffs. In conclusion, when digital reaps
    profits, it does'nt share any with its employees, and when no profits
    are realized, the employees are let go, still digital has relatively 
    above average benefits and WAS considered a "good" Employer. 
    Profit sharing is very important in my book, regardless of its actual
    financial impact or lack of to my bank account, its importance, to me, 
    is more psychological than materialistic.  
    
    
    fd.

    RE -1
    
    >As a digital employee and a professional, the least I could do is write
    >correctly and with NO spelling errors, if you cannot and choose not
  
    >digital does'nt make a profit, then it reduces its resources and costs
    
    Shouldn't that be "doesn't" :^)
    
    Mark 
    

    re .61
    
    BTW, no profanity was involved.  Only a slang term hardly considered
    offensive to many American (as opposed to English) speakers.  Indeed,
    in the context, it was quite humorous.
    
    Develop some perspective (after 17 years in Digital, I've learned
    some).
    
    /Dave

    Re: .61
    
    That should be "Digital", not "digital", unless you yourself are
    made of 1's and 0's.  At least spell the name of the company correctly.
    

    
    I was going to use this reply to debate THE ISSUE, but that has never
    stopped this notesfile before:
    
>    RE: .48
>    
>    Please keep your fly and such tasteless words out of this discussion,
>    if you cannot converse without profanity, please restraint. As for
>    which English version I learnt? I do not know, I was under the
>    impression that there was ONE English language only with no versions.
 
    Well, if you get offended by that word in that context then we
    obviously have 2 different languages with semantics bounded by the
    regional mores of the individual. I apologise for that transgression
    and accept that maybe the Corporate English and the Corporate morality  
    that you feel is typified by your opinions is perhaps not the same one
    that follows in this part of a corporation which is indeed a worldwide 
    entity (excuse the last bit of verbiage). I tend to write doggerel in 
    Notes because I didnt really think the audience expected much better. 
    I feel that looseness of language implies familiarity, maybe that is 
    what you are seeing rather than any real disrespect. I dont write this 
    same way to customers or internally in a business sense. 
    
    <AFTERBURNERS ON>
    I think perhaps you should consider that many people are threatened by
    people who pick on non-issue related things with their notes. A whole
    sub-culture seems to bash people for USING UPPER CASE LETTERS, spelling
    A1, oops ALL-IN-ONE, oops ALL-IN-1, or for using "wrong English" when
    their natural dialect has no structural relation to that language.
    People are just trying to get their opinions across as best they can
    and some person (well meaning I am sure) goes and stomps on them for
    some picky little use of the language when all they want to do is make
    their contribution to the discussion and get back to what they are paid
    to do (like writing correctly). There are many people who write to
    Notesfiles rarely because they are not quite sure of the rules, the total 
    etiquette or the chummy little cliques that often dominate notes. That is 
    not to say that they have some content to add to a discussion. I value the 
    content of what any manager has to say on topics discussed here, even if I 
    disagreed with them. This notesfile is not a formal communications
    channel but is a very good way to see both sides of an argument.
    <AFTERBURNERS OFF - MISSION CONTROL, COMMENCING CIRCUITOUS ARGUMENT>
    
    >As a digital employee and a professional, the least I could do is write
    >correctly and with NO spelling errors, if you cannot and choose not
    >to do that, then you portray a rather poor picture of digital and its
    >employees. I am sure that this is not your intent.
    
    Actually, I am writing to my intended audience. That audience expects
    to read opinions and comment about a topic, they are not part of a
    spelling contest. Given that each persons proficiency in this
    particular language varies ( I would argue about your use of "please
    restraint" above) we are looking for the content of what they are
    trying to say. In fact there are many things beside spelling that are
    important, such as grammar. Also, no two dictionaries are alike and 
    in fact American spellings are different from English ones. I am
    Australian, this may not mean much to you but just ask the All-in-1
    developers what the Internationalisation (yes, I spell I18N with an s)
    of All-in-1 was like, what hassles they have had building All-in-1 kits 
    from the US Kit with the British Lexicon. That aside, there are words
    and spellings where we are not the same as the English, where both the 
    American and the British are accepted. Our technical writer refers to the 
    Macquarie Dictionary when she writes but there is a copy of Fowler's 
    Modern English Usage (Oxford Press) in her bookcase, its often a juggling 
    act. By the way, what is the plural of platypus and can you dance the 
    quango? Then tell me there is only one English.
    
    >FYI,    its : refers to a possession
    >
    >        it's: refers to  either: it is,  or  it has.
    
    You are indeed correct. I stand convicted, hoisted upon my own petard.
    Oops, I've done it again, please dont look up the derivation of that
    word.
    
    regards,
    John
    

    re .61
    
    	And while you're at it, perhaps you should fix the title
    	to your entry.
    
    	Glass houses and all that...
    
    re EDP
    
    	Perhaps you haven't seen pay for performance because you haven't 
    	earned it.	
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    RE: Last few
    
        I do not see the intent nor the impetus behind the last few
        responses. I do and did not intend to offend anyone, and if I
        did, I respectfully apologize. Regarding the spelling of "digital"
        I was under the impression that it is the correct spelling, however
        I could be wrong, could anyone shed some light on this one?
    
        The word does'nt was purposefully misspelled, to guage the
        response to my original note, well, I got two responses; one
        was a welcome positive criticism sent to me through E-mail,and 
        another predictable, rather revengeful one through notes. I have
        used the same word within the same note twice, spelled correctly.
    
        I welcome positive criticism, without it, I would not progress!
    
        Mr. Oppelt, are you a manager by any chance?  
         
        I realize that I have digressed from the original subject of this
        notefile and would like to abort further inputs.
    
        Paix!

    re -1
       
 >   another predictable, rather revengeful one through notes. I have
    
    Hey, no revenge intended.  OR didn't you see the smiley face?
    
    :^) means lighten up.
    
    >The word does'nt was purposefully misspelled, to guage the
    
    More bait?
    
    Mark ;^)   with a wink.

    One word is CONSTANTLY misspelled and has been for ages...that word is
    GAUGE. It's been spelled GUAGE for so long that about 99% of us really
    think it's spelled that way.
    
    Ken

    
    	And I always thought it was GAGUE
    
    	It just goes to show...   :^)

    .71:
    
    Checking the gages must be a plum of a job.
    
    Dick

    Re .66:
    
    > 	Perhaps you haven't seen pay for performance because you haven't 
    >	earned it.	

    When preparing my monthly status report after my last review, I decided
    to check a few figures.  To my surprise, I discovered that during the
    period of that report, I had answered 2.5 times as many QARs as any
    other engineer in the Alpha/VMS development group.  (As everybody
    knows, the Alpha/VMS group is unimportant; they are not doing any work
    that is significant to the company, and there is of course no reason to
    pay for performance in that area.)  I have left that group, in part due
    to the politics and bureaucracy.  Upon leaving, I had answered more
    QARs than any other engineer except the two people handling the Macro
    compiler.
    
    Quantitative measurements are not so readily available for other
    aspects of performance, but I can assure you that the lack of pay for
    performance is Digital's fault, not mine.
    
    
    				-- edp

    	re .73

    >> 	Perhaps you haven't seen pay for performance because you haven't 
    >>	earned it.	

    >other engineer in the Alpha/VMS development group.  (As everybody
    >knows, the Alpha/VMS group is unimportant; they are not doing any work
    >that is significant to the company, 

    	Well there you go!  You're lucky you weren't transitioned then.

    >I have left that group, in part due
    >to the politics and bureaucracy.  

    	As evidenced by alot of what you write in here and other places,
    	it seems you have a hard time conforming to (or even going along
    	with) any requests you don't agree with.  You don't seem to be
    	a team player, but would rather chalk your differences up to
    	"politics."  I can imagine why outperforming others quantitatively
    	may not be enough to make you a truly top performer.  If one's
    	attitude and demeanor negatively affect others, regardless of one's
    	quantitative performance he can still be a detriment.  In fact,
    	of that person negatively affects others to the point that they
    	all begin to perform poorly, then he might be able to outperform
    	others with a mere mediocre performance!  

    	One bad apple CAN spoil the whole bunch.
    
    	Joe Oppelt
    
    	BTW, were those two other individuals who answered more QARs than
    	you paid better than you?

    re .73
    
    Well, there you are then.  If you didn't make so many mistakes,
    you wouldn't need to answer so many QARs!
    
    			:-)
    
    Actually, edp, your remarks in an earlier note were right 
    on the money.

    Re .74:
    
    > Well there you go!  You're lucky you weren't transitioned then.
        
    Well, now I can't tell if you could tell I was being sarcastic.  The
    Alpha/VMS group is one of the company's darlings -- allegedly critical
    to success.
    
    > One bad apple CAN spoil the whole bunch.

    Here we see more of the "attack the messenger" syndrome.  You're making
    guesses based upon very little information.  It's common human
    behavior:  Make the bad news go away by figuring there is something
    wrong with the messenger.  That's human, but wrong.
    
    I'm not the only person who has left that group because of politics and
    other reasons.  Another person, whom I know was requested to stay
    because their knowledge and skills were sorely needed, left because
    their contribution hadn't been recognized (not even on paper, exclusive
    of money).  And there are others.
    
    But this whole matter has gotten sidetracked.  I've espoused a theory
    that Digital needs to pay for performance.  That's not the same as
    asking for pay for performance myself.  I think Digital needs to pay
    employees for performance on an institutional level, and to do so in a
    manner that allows employees to believe it.  And even that theory is
    only a corollary to the theory that Digital needs to recognize that it
    is a MEMBER of a team, not the goal of the team.
    
    My dissatisfactions with Digital do not include pay as a significant
    issue.  One of my largest gripes is that Digital has never given me
    assignments large or complex enough to fulfill my abilities and
    interests.  That should make it clear to you that I'm not being selfish
    and asking for pay for myself.  I could give a rat's behind about pay;
    I would rather have assignments that involved data structures more
    complex than the VMS-ubiquitous linked list than a pay raise.
    
    How I do tie in to the theory about Digital and teamwork is that I and
    others are not going to "give our all" for Digital when Digital is
    being selfish.  For many, that means pay for performance.  For myself
    and some others, that means recognition, interesting work, or other
    desirable things.  For all employees, that means Digital needs to
    consider the employees as teammates, not as peons.  Digital broke the
    team structure; now Digital has to fix it.
    
    >	As evidenced by alot of what you write in here and other places,
    >	it seems you have a hard time conforming to (or even going along
    >	with) any requests you don't agree with.
    
    A person who just has a hard time conforming will certainly stand out.
    A person who is intelligent and has a right answer when others have the
    wrong answer will also stand out.  Which is the case here?  Are you
    going to dismiss a person who stands out because they stand out, or are
    you going to examine the message?
    
    What evidence do you have that the former is the case and not the
    latter?  Your note did not analyze the theory I espoused at all; it
    just attacked the messenger.
    
    That's a human thing to do, but it is wrong.  In the future, please
    address your responses to the statements I make, not to me.   Stop
    avoiding the bad news!  It's okay to disagree with the bad news, but
    attacking the messenger is wrong.
    
    > 	BTW, were those two other individuals who answered more QARs than
    >	you paid better than you?

    I'm not privvy to that information.  Note that although one of them
    answered more QARs, it was over a period of about nine months, compared
    to the four or so for me.  Neither of them are senior people in the
    group, so I doubt their recognition or compensation corresponds to
    their productivity.
    
    
    Re .75:
    
    Actually, only a few of the QARs I answered were caused by problems in
    the code I wrote.  A lot of things are tracked down to bugs in
    compilers, the underlying system, library routines, et cetera.
    
    
    				-- edp

    	re .76
    
    >> 	BTW, were those two other individuals who answered more QARs than
    >>	you paid better than you?

    >I'm not privvy to that information.  
    
    	Of course you're not.  I asked this question to get this exact
    	response.  If you don't know what others earn, how can you say
    	that you or anyone else is not being paid fairly for performance?
    	Digital says that they are following industry standards.  Are
    	you saying that DEC should go beyond those standards?  Are you
    	asking DEC to price itself out of the market because of its
    	overpriced salary overhead?
    
    
    	Joe Oppelt

re: .76,

    	It is truly sad to see what I would consider quality DEC
    [software] engineers who have become so turned off by the [software]
    engineering environment here at DEC.  Without dwelling on the specifics
    of EDP's situation, I think it is important to recognize a few key
    points in his message:

    	1.  Engineers are still being rewarded more for their loyalty
    	    and/or political correctitude than for actual performance
    	    and/or value to the corporation as a whole.  This is one of
    	    the many problems caused by Empire building in the past,
    	    and hopefully one which the New Digital (based on profit
    	    and loss centers, etc.) will correct over time.

    	2.  Engineers are not given enough challenging projects, and/or
    	    the necessary latitude to research and explore such projects.
    	    I think that the newer, more entrepeneurial DEC will eventually
    	    also provide a means of intra-coorporate entrepreneurialism
    	    (Intrapreneurialism) for engineers as well as for managers
   	    within the corporation by providing *real* incentives for
    	    (successful) midnight hacks, ideas, inventions, etc.  Such
   	    incentives will also serve as challenges to creative engineers.

    	3.  Finally, there appears to be a growing rift between management
    	    and labor within many segments of the corporation.  Digital
    	    needs to take steps to return the corporate structure to a
    	    more egalitarian manager/employee relationship to discourage
    	    this phenomenon.  Left unchecked, this rift will undoubtedly
    	    lead to the establishment of professional associations, unions,
    	    and other (perhaps even newer) sorts of labor organizations which
    	    nobody really wants, but which will be neccessary in order to
    	    protect the rights of employees.

  
  Whilst I agree with the body of .78, one comment makes me see red ...
  
  > Engineers are not given enough challenging projects, and/or   
  > the necessary latitude to research and explore such projects. 
  
  Engineering in this company isn't supposed to be a university or a rest
  home for bored hackers or a place to toss off the next submission to a
  DECUS tape - it is *supposed* to be a source for quality products that
  the customers will pay money for. "Challenging projects" are what result
  in midnight hacks, something that is written because the author WANTS to
  write it. Yes, they should get more recognition when the result is seen
  as useful to more than that one person but part of the problem with *some*
  of our products today is that they are thrown over the wall full of bugs
  because bug-fixing is less "challenging" than going off to the next project
  and quality is less "interesting" than new functionality. There is nothing
  wrong with turning a challenging hack into a corporate product as long as
  the quality is high enough. I don't mean that you add the overhead of the
  administration machine or extra "management" but the dedication and
  responsibility of testing & fixing the product rather than nipping off to
  another group for a new project (enabling the author can stick to writing
  smart comments in notes files but always with the let-out of "but I don't
  work for that group any longer").
  
  You want something challenging ? Spend some time explaining to customers
  why the software that we charge an exorbitant price for is full of holes.
  You want something interesting ? Try TESTING the functionality of the code
  you've just written rather than assuming that because it compiles and links
  it must be OK. 
  
  This company ships a lot of well-written products which are of a very
  high quality - setting the standard for the rest of the industry in many
  cases - but it also ships a lot of dross. It's the dross that tends to
  be hyped as the best thing since sliced bread but which never delivers
  until several versions later - if at all - usually after the customers have
  gone elsewhere and slagged DEC off again. Note that well ... regardless of
  how many wonderful well-written, tested and supported products we have, if
  the one that has been forced down a customer's throat is garbage then it is
  THE COMPANY that suffers, it is DIGITAL's image that is tarnished and it is
  DIGITAL that loses future custom.
  
  Please don't go whining about "engineers needing more challenges" while
  we still paint sh*t yellow and sell it as gold.
  
  Frank

    re: -.1
    
    As to the issue of poor quality programs by midnight hackers going to
    the customers, this situation is remedied by the ASSETS program.  My
    understanding is that this program does provide a quality assurance
    mechanism that is rather effective for this.
    
    I think of ASSETS as being like a mechanism for stripping the meat off
    a cow.  We now have a pond stocked well with pirahna.  Throw the cow in
    and it can get stripped clean pretty quickly and is now a quality job.
    There are requirements now in place to assure that the cow is big and
    healthy.  There is only one little problem.  The structures are not yet
    in place to entice the cow to jump in.
    
    Steve

    Re .77:
    
    > If you don't know what others earn, how can you say that you or
    > anyone else is not being paid fairly for performance?
    
    I didn't say I don't know what others earn; I said I didn't know what
    two particular people earned.  I do have some knowledge about the
    general situation.  I do have knowledge about some groups' financial
    rewards vis-a-vis their contribution to the company.  I am privvy to
    positions and promotions when they occur.  I am privvy to people's
    contributions to the groups I have been in and around.
    
    > Digital says that they are following industry standards.
    
    Yeah, I know Digital "participates" in an industry "survey" and sets
    wages accordingly.  When companies do that with prices, it is called
    price-fixing and is illegal.
    
    But Digital doesn't follow industry standards.  I've seen Digital
    follow industry standards when the industry was faring poorly and
    deviate from industry standards when Digital was fairly poorly relative
    to the industry.  Employees who stuck it out on Digital's request were
    not rewarded later with better-than-industry-average compensation in
    exchange for their previously worse-than-average compensation.  So
    Digital sometimes provides average and sometimes provides
    less-than-average.  The average of that is less-than-average.
    
    > Are you asking DEC to price itself out of the market because of its	
    > overpriced salary overhead?
    
    Where did I ever say pay-for-performance meant increasing pay?  If
    Digital paid for performance, some people's pay would be increased, and
    some people's pay would be decreased -- or at least increased little or
    none in absolute terms, thus decreasing in value as inflation goes on.
    
    Of course, if the company were effective at matching pay to
    performance, poor performers would leave for positions at less
    effective companies (or other fields where they could do better), thus
    leaving the company with better than average performers.  If that comes
    to be, then of course Digital should pay better than the industry
    average.  It would work, since it would be producing better products
    more efficiently, and thus would be able to pay better than average.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .79:
    
    It is true that work assignments will not always be interesting, but
    they certainly ought to be challenging a good deal of the time.  If a
    work assignment is not interesting, that is because the company and its
    customers want things for themselves that are not the same as the
    things that make engineers happy.  But if a work assignment is not
    challenging, then an engineer is not being used effectively.
    
    In particular, Digital is at least a decade behind in software
    engineering techniques.  We are using antiquated methods that cause
    bugs and maintenance problems and cost development time.  These
    techniques are unimaginative compared to what is available today --
    they are the techniques on the lazy road that people take when they are
    complacent and accept the status quo.  Of course, what employee has any
    incentive to break the status quo?  It is a risk that is unlikely to be
    received warmly and that they are unlikely to be rewarded for. 
    Employees do not perceive that what is good for Digital is good for
    them, so few people are interested in fixing what is broken.
    
    Digital cannot just expect that employees will give their all for the
    company -- they won't.  Digital has to be part of the team, and then
    employees will give a lot.
    
    
    				-- edp

re .79:

Many tasks that a software engineer has to perform aren't challenging and
they *don't* help us to produce quality products.  Most engineers *do*
feel challenged by bug fixes.  They're complaining about paperwork and
kit building, not about QARs, CLDs, etc.

re .81:

The reality of the software industry is that in order to maximize income,
you have to change companies at the beginning of your career.  If you've
been working for DEC since you got out of college, and that was more than
3 or 4 years ago, your income will be lower than that of someone who's
changed employers every 2-4 years for the first 10 years or so.  This
situation pervades the industry.

P.S. It's "privy", not "privvy".

    The following reply has been contributed by a member of our community,
    not the author of the base note, 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 entering this anonymously to protect the product and organization. If I left
my name and organization attached, anyone could easily determine the product 
from the organization.


In .79, the author complains about engineers dropping projects with major bugs 
in it. This does happen; I knew an engineer like that. He left Digital.

However, I worked on a project which was shipped with major bugs because 
management insisted "it has to ship by the end of the quarter." Two weeks later,
we had the most serious bugs fixed. One of these could make the product unusable
under certain conditions, although not under likely conditions. (I'd like to 
describe this, but it would give away the project.)

Yes, the project was consistently behind schedule. But we were not given time to
write a proper schedule. We had a schedule before the requirements were written.
We were not given time to scope out the pieces of the work before coming up with
estimates. Then we had to stick to these estimates.

We also had to always show something more working. Bugs didn't matter for these 
demos; we just had to show progress. Getting something working was more 
important than designing it properly. Of course, it takes much longer to fix 
bugs than to design them out.

Six sigma, if applied, will prevent this. My organization has said that we will 
use 6 sigma; I will see on the next project. Our quality manager has said that 
he wants to know if a manager does not allow us to follow the 6 sigma process. I
hope this is more than lip service. I will wait and see; and do what I can to do
things right. But I can't afford to jeapordize my job. If I can't convince my 
management to do it right, I'll have to do it their way, and hope that I can 
find a better job before the company (or at least this part of it) goes down the
tubes.

I keep trying to end this on an optimistic note. I hope 6 sigma works. I'd like 
to see this company producing the best products for the money. I hope things 
work out.

    	re .80
    
    	The author of .79 was not talking about "programs by midnight
    	hackers going out to the customers", but rather products like
    	RDB and CDD that consistently (recent years) get shipped with
    	known bugs.  Folks like us at the CSCs then have to try to play 
    	"teflon" for the company, explaining why we need DOZENS of 
    	patches for the latest release of RDB.
    
    	The author of .84 was right on target in mentioning pre-defined
    	(marketing-driven) timetables for release dates rather than
    	attention to quality in determining what should be the correct 
    	ship date.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    re: .85
    
    Joe, you might take a look again at note .79.  There is a
    direct reference there to taking hacks and making them 
    available to customers so long as the quality is high 
    enough.  This is in the same paragraph that mentions 
    midnight hackers.  This issue is addressed with ASSETS,
    but you will note some sarcasm in my response of note .80.
    ASSETS is not designed to provide much for the originators
    let alone the cost centers of the originators.  And, this
    is a major flaw in that program, which, in my view, 
    frustrates the condition as stated in note .79 of making
    sure that hacks that become products have high quality.
    
    Steve

    	re .81

    >Yeah, I know Digital "participates" in an industry "survey" and sets
    >wages accordingly.  When companies do that with prices, it is called
    >price-fixing and is illegal.

    	Is it also illegal when a gas station sees that it has its
    	prices set too high/low relative to the other 3 stations at
    	the same intersection and then adjusts its prices accordingly?

    	Both (DEC, gas station) sound like standard market pricing to me.
    
    >Digital sometimes provides average and sometimes provides
    >less-than-average.  The average of that is less-than-average.

    	If that were true, economic theory should dictate that underpaid 
    	workers should go to higher-paying companies.  But that
    	holds true only if salary is all that matters.  Some people
    	who see themselves as being underpaid stay anyway because of the
    	working conditions, or benefits, or co-workers, or job
    	satisfaction/comfort.  If a company recognizes those additional
    	values and exploits them, then the company is being shrewd
    	in its cost control.

    	What alot of people are taking issue with today is that DEC
    	is shooting itself in the foot for tainting or even eliminating
    	some of those peripheral values.  Others take issue with those
    	who see the potential of a "package" as a value -- especially
    	if they then expect it and perform their job in "lame duck"
    	mode.
    
    >Where did I ever say pay-for-performance meant increasing pay?  If
    >Digital paid for performance, some people's pay would be increased, and
    >some people's pay would be decreased -- or at least increased little or
    >none in absolute terms, thus decreasing in value as inflation goes on.

    	Our group does pay for performance today much as you described.
    	It was explained to us that DEC is headed towards what my group
    	does as a universal practice throughout the company.

    	In my group I might be denied a raise if I were already positioned
    	at the high end of my job code's salary range -- EVEN IF I GOT
    	A *1* RATING.  If I was overpriced for my job code, it would
    	behoove me to strive for a promotion to have latitude within
    	my new salary range for a raise.  (This takes care of overpriced
    	external hires and job-jumpers.)  A 4 performer is positioned
    	at the bottom of the salary range.  A 3's median target salary
    	is at about 25-33% of the salary range.  A 2's median is targeted
    	at 50-66%.  A 1's is the high end of the range.  When I get a
    	salary increase I am shown the range, and where I was targeted,
    	and where I actually fell in the range.  I can become the
    	master of my salary increase by seeing my salary range and that
    	of the next job level.  I can have mapped out for me (through
    	my job plan) what it takes to move up a job level or improve 
    	my performance rating.  And when times are bad, my raise may 
    	suffer, but if I maintain my level it will, by the definition
    	of the program, even out in better times.  I have found this
    	to be the case in my experience with my last two raises in this
    	group.

    	Joe Oppelt

re: .79,
  
>  > Engineers are not given enough challenging projects, and/or   
>  > the necessary latitude to research and explore such projects. 
  
>  Engineering in this company isn't supposed to be a university or a rest
>  home for bored hackers or a place to toss off the next submission to a
>  DECUS tape - it is *supposed* to be a source for quality products that
>  the customers will pay money for. 

   	Precisely!!!  I couldn't agree with you more!  However, the
    existing structure of this company is in many ways *exactly* what
    you have just described!  Why?  Because there is no incentive for
    entrepeneurialism in the engineering ranks.  As such, engineering
    plods along in a quasi-acedemic environment whose only rewards for
    "above and beyond" engineering acheivements are derived from warm
    and fuzzy peer recognition (similar to the sorts of rewards derived
    from an acedemic institution - except even acedemics can potentially
    profit from works they publish on the side, etc.).

>  "Challenging projects" are what result
>  in midnight hacks, something that is written because the author WANTS to
>  write it.  Yes, they should get more recognition when the result is seen
>  as useful to more than that one person but part of the problem with *some*
>  of our products today is that they are thrown over the wall full of bugs
>  because bug-fixing is less "challenging" than going off to the next project
>  and quality is less "interesting" than new functionality.

    	Heaven forbid that an engineer ever be given the freedom to
    design and create something without buy-in from fifteen other
    DEC organizations (even if that same engineer spent countless hours
    discussing what customers need with actual customers before doing so
    as I did at DECworld '87 for my DECpulse ASSETS submission).

    	Ever heard of "Unix" (TM)?  Guess how it was developed?  Even
    this wonderful little product you are using right now (VAXnotes)
    originated as a "midnight hack".

    	Besides, if it turns out to be a quality product, then great!
    If not, then the market won't buy it.  Remember, a true "midnight hack"
    is written on an engineer's own time, and DEC isn't out any money on
    the development.  Something tells me you have a different definition
    of "midnight hack" than I do.

    	The fact that a product is uninteresting to an engineer is
    probably because they never really bought into the design of the
    product in the first place - which itself, is because the engineer
    typically has very little say about what they end up working on.
    Engineers in this corporation are a little like migrant workers in
    that if they want to continue to work here, they have little choice
    but to apply for jobs from groups who happen to be hiring at the
    precise time they are looking.  Given this scenario, it is a wonder
    engineers (or any employees for that matter) *ever* find a job they
    truly enjoy doing.  Typically, they settle for something close to
    what they would like to be doing, or something which they feel *might*
    develop into something they would like to be doing and then proceed
    to bite the bullet while they wait for that dream job to come true.
    I feel lucky that I have finally found one of those dream jobs, but
    it took me over 7 years at DEC to get to this point.

    	In a truly intra-corporate entrepeneurial environment, on the
    other hand, an engineer might propose a product idea to a capital
    group of some sort of investors in hopes of selling internal "funny-
    stock" (similar in concept to internal "funny-money") in the idea
    or miniature intra-corporate business unit, which could then be
    used by the engineer to fund themselves with during the development
    phases of the product.

    	Another such example of "intrapreneurialism" might be an engineering
    "flea market" (without the bugs ;^) in which individual engineers could
    offer their midnight hacks for sale to intra-corporate customers (many
    of which might later turn into funded projects along the lines of the
    above internal stock investment approach).  Such a flea market could
    either take place live and in person (say in a cafeteria or at a corporate
    event), or electronically along the lines of the "Info-Market" idea
    proposed way back in note #1024.

        Some might argue that such internal funding processes already
    exist within the corporation (RAD, etc.), but in many ways the current
    internal funding process is to intrapreneurialism what the communist
    central committee is to the free market system!  Let's face it, DEC
    needs to undergo some radical reforms in order to make this new
    entepreneurial structure work.

    				   -davo

p.s.	Maybe a failed coup attempt would help push this process along here too?

    Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been given the
    impression that some of the key engineers/program managers are
    given bonus incentives (stock???) based on meeting schedules. I'm
    not sure if this is true for all projects or not. If someone is
    going to put some substantial cash in the bank by shipping a product
    on time, you can be sure that a few bugs here and there aren't going
    to stop it. :-)
    
    There's additional monetary incentives for engineers to come up
    with new innovative ideas. One being a cash bonus for any patent
    issued.
    
    Marty

    I've patented.  I've published.  I've been compensated for both.
    A buddy of mine with the same job at Digital used his midnight hours
    when I was hacking to work for UPS.  Guess which one of us had the
    highest $/hour for those hours?  The reason for an engineer putting in
    that time has less to do with the monetary rewards and more to do with
    other types of rewards.  But, it's hard to justify this to the wife.
    (Mine, by the way, purchased one of those masks to keep light out while
    I work since I have the terminal in our bedroom.  The keyclicks still
    bother her, but there's no other place in the house that works well.)
    By the way, because of the travel budget constraints I am now limited to
    submitting papers to conferences that won't require travel costs.
    So, my publishing is pretty much put on hold since conferences that are
    in my domain tend to be held far away (like, California) and I seldom
    find tech journals that deal with my issues.  I would gladly swap the
    reward for publishing ($500) for a plane ticket, but since we insist on
    paying the high prices of American Express, this is out of the
    question.
                                                           
    Steve

    Re .87:
    
    > 	Is it also illegal when a gas station sees that it has its
    >	prices set too high/low relative to the other 3 stations at
    >	the same intersection and then adjusts its prices accordingly?

    Gas station prices are publicly displayed, usually in large numerals
    visible to the public from the road.  Computer company salaries are
    kept largely secret but privately shared among companies but not
    employees.  If gas stations got together to collect price information
    like that and used it to set prices for the next year, you can bet they
    would have state and federal attorneys breathing down their necks all
    over the country.
    
    > 	If that were true, economic theory should dictate that underpaid 
    >	workers should go to higher-paying companies.
    
    Yes, you will get some of that, and you will also get other effects,
    such as capable workers not working as hard as they would otherwise.
    (Yes, a worker could make more _money_ by going to another company, but
    for some people, more money is not their overriding goal, so instead of
    making the move, they will accept an "easier" or more secure (stagnant)
    job for less money.)  A basic economic approximation is that
    individuals act in enlightened self-interest.  But self-interest does
    not always mean the pursuit of money, so one cannot conclude that poor
    pay causes transfers to other companies and not other effects.
    
    > Some people who see themselves as being underpaid stay anyway because
    > of the working conditions, or benefits, or co-workers, or job	
    > satisfaction/comfort.  If a company recognizes those additional	
    > values and exploits them, then the company is being shrewd in its cost
    > control.                           
    
    I discussed this several responses back:  Digital is not special in
    this regard.  Any advantages it had over other companies in how it
    treated its employees are being quickly lost.  This invisible reward is
    insufficient with the present state of the company.
    
    > 	Our group does pay for performance today much as you described.
    >	It was explained to us that DEC is headed towards what my group
    >	does as a universal practice throughout the company.

    The system you describe has been used at Digital for many years; I am
    at a loss as to why you say Digital is headed toward it.  Has your
    group not been using it in the past?
    
    > 	In my group I might be denied a raise if I were already positioned
    >	at the high end of my job code's salary range -- EVEN IF I GOT
    >	A *1* RATING.
    
    That is obviously wasteful of Digital -- not to reward an excellent
    performer.  This is one example of lack of pay for performance in
    Digital's system.
    
    > If I was overpriced for my job code, it would behoove me to strive
    > for a promotion to have latitude within my new salary range for a
    > raise.
    
    That is another flaw in some, perhaps many, situations:  The system
    encourages employees to seek promotions (maneuvering politically if
    need be).  That's fixed in the system and inflexible, which means it
    is hard or impossible to change when it is bad.  When would it be bad? 
    When an employee is in a position in which they perform very well or
    even excel and quite possibly which they enjoy.  Yet such an employee
    will reach a level where they are not rewarded for the work they are
    doing.  If you keep promoting employees who are doing good jobs, you
    will promote an employee until they are not doing a good job. 
    Everybody rises to their level of incompetence.
    
    The system that makes employees strive for promotions pushes everybody
    along pre-defined career paths without regard to what's best for
    Digital or the team.
    
    > (This takes care of overpriced external hires and job-jumpers.)
    
    Oh, yes, indeed, it takes care of overpriced external hires.  It also
    eliminates CORRECTLY high-priced external hires -- Digital is unable to
    hire the best performers because its salary structure limits them.
    
    > A 4 performer is positioned at the bottom of the salary range.  A 3's
    > median target salary is at about 25-33% of the salary range.  A 2's
    > median is targeted at 50-66%.  A 1's is the high end of the range.
    
    Aren't these things explained to nearly all employees?  Did you also
    know that there are quotas for ratings?  Each group can only assign
    so many 1's and so many 2's -- there are guidelines for how many people
    should be in each group.  By limiting the ratings managers can assign
    to people, Digital limits the quality of performers managers can have.
    If a manager tried to hire only top-notch people, they would be forced
    by the system to rate some of them as less than top-notch, and some of
    them as only average or worse.  Thus, the top-notch people would not be
    compensated properly, and they would go elsewhere or perform more
    poorly.  Thus, managers are forced to have average and below-average
    people on their staff.
    
    > I can become the	master of my salary increase by seeing my salary
    > range and that of the next job level.  I can have mapped out for me
    > (through my job plan) what it takes to move up a job level or improve
    > my performance rating.
    
    That is an illusion of course, since managers cannot really rate,
    promote, or reward everybody according to performance.  If everybody in
    a group performed exceptionally, a manager could not rate them all as
    1's nor promote them all.
    
    In addition to the system not actually rating people according to
    performance because of the built-in limits, this system enforces a
    local, short-term view.  The described rating plan rewards employees
    for performance in a locked-in plan.  If the employee follows their
    plan well, they are rated well, even if the project they are on fails.
    The problem with that is that the success of the team is disconnected
    from the success of the team members.  Projects can fail, the company
    can degrade, but employees still do well in their plans and are
    rewarded.  Compensation is not tied to the success of the team; the
    "performance" that is rewarded is paper performance, not something that
    really affects the team.
    
    This does not encourage team-work.  To encourage team-work, we need
    this connection:  If the team does well, the members do well -- and the
    converse.
    
    The whole problem here is that there just is not a connection between
    the team doing well and the individual members doing well.  Employees
    have little or no reason to believe they will be rewarded if the
    company does well, so they have little reason to do what's right for
    the company as a whole instead of focusing on their local job plan.
    Consider the example I gave previously:  No engineer has an incentive
    to push for changes in software engineering methods, because it is
    risky, is unlikely to be received well, and is likely not to be
    rewarded if it succeeds.  For an employee, stepping outside their
    daily routine to improve the company is all risk and no reward. 
    Employees are not part of a team; they are robots manipulated by the
    company.  If Digital wants to succeed, if Digital wants to build a
    team, then it must change that.
    
    > And when times are bad, my raise may suffer, but if I maintain my
    > level it will, by the definition of the program, even out in better
    > times.
    
    Even out?  Even out how?  If your salary evens out by returning to
    industry norms (adjusting for your experience and performance), that
    doesn't even out the wages lost because salary was low for a time. 
    Evening that out requires paying higher-than-average wages for a
    period.  As I said previously, Digital does not do that.  The overall
    effect is less-than-average wages.
                                   
    
    				-- edp

    Mr. edp makes a number of challenging assertions in his recent replies,
    particularly .91.  I find I agree with them.  One point I'd like to
    elaborate on: the forced migration of employees into management.  On
    one hand, we are saying--and even Digital is now saying--that we have
    too many levels of management and too much bureaucracy.  On the other
    hand, we continue to structure the organization such that individuals
    are encouraged to go into management, which is old-fashioned thinking
    that tempts the Peter Principle.  The level of Principal has been
    described to me as a "lifetime grade," meaning that the average worker
    is not expected to rise above it.  There's quite a lot of room in the
    salary range, and I question whether anyone is really losing money
    because they're at the top of the range.  But I know Principals who are
    in their twenties.  Imagine staying at the same level for thirty-five
    years or more!  Sooner or later they have to move up, or move on.
    
    Let's say we wish to retain excellent senior employees.  Where does a
    Principal go?  There are two choices.  One is into the consultancy
    level, which is not a promotion but an appointment.  From my
    observation, that path is not entirely satisfactory, because of the
    politics and difficulty involved.  Politics?  Oh yes, there are. 
    Difficulty?  The level is supposed to be equivalent to a manager, but
    there seem to be more managers than consulting engineers.  The other
    choice is management, for which there are classes, regular openings
    that must be filled, and set rules for choosing among candidates. 
    (It's possible to file a discrimination suit if you are passed over for
    promotion; who has filed suit over a lost appointment?) People who were
    my peers in the last ten years who chose to go into management have
    generally risen one or two levels further than I have.  One rose to the
    absolute top of the heap and was pushed off, 'tis true, and I do not
    know whether they earn more than I do; but there they are.
    
    I don't want to press sour grapes here.  I do not desire to go into
    management, and I wish my one-time peers well in their chosen careers.
    Perhaps I'm looking at the grass in the other fellow's yard and finding
    it greener.  But it seems to me that the career path choice is slanted
    toward management.  If so, I think that ought to change.

    re .92
    
    As someone who has been a principal engineer at the top of the range
    for a while now, I can attest to the difficulty of the next step.  I
    could go into management, except that I was one for a while - I don't
    think that either Digital or I would benefit from a repeat.  (Also, I'd
    have to go into a fairly senior management position to justify the same
    pay, and Digital would definitely be on the short end of THAT proposition.)
    
    Becoming a consulting engineer would require considerable change in the
    way I think and work, at least in my view of consultancy, reinforced by
    the last "road show" on the consulting engineering promotion process.
    Wouldn't mind so much if the upper end of the scale kept up with
    inflation, but for quite a few years, it hasn't.  (The consulting
    engineers giving the presentation admitted that "pay for performance"
    had not been honored very well, which essentially made the promise that
    principal engineer could be a "life grade", pretty hollow.)   I can
    accept that my real value to the company might cease to increase, but
    being reassured that my contribution is valued while my real pay drops
    does not cut it too well.
    
    /Dave

    This ain't Digital's fault.  It is a prevailing attitude in the
    industry that engineers have to move into management or get
    stuck in a dead end.  Perhaps the industry is about to change that
    attitude and actually provide a technical career path that is
    equivalent to the management path.  I've heard it lamented for 10 years
    or more that there just isn't a technical path equivalence in big
    business for engineers.  Personally, I don't think there ever will be.
    
    Steve

	The last few replies go against what I have seen in this company.

	Where do you think consultants come from? They are valued because they
	have been in real "live" jobs, and can use their experience to
	evaluate situations, and recommend direction and solutions based on
	that experience.

	I have seen the profiles for consultants across Europe, I have been on 
	some of the training courses which have been designed to help move 
	people from principles to consultants, and also move along the 
	consultant career path. 

	Is this another country difference?

	Heather - A consultant who used to be a software engineer.

re: .92, where to advance

Why is a management position so often the next step past principal engineer
or the like?  Just look at the progression of technical job descriptions
from entry level up to principal, and also the first line supervisor's
and manager's job descriptions.
As technical capability increases, the focus is less on doing a specific
technical job and more on defining the jobs others will do.
Engineer IIs write modules, senior engineers decide which modules will 
do what part of the job, principal engineers figure out what the job is.
Engineer IIs program gate arrays, senior engineers decide which gate array
will do what part of the job, principal engineers figure out what the job is.
Note how even the disciplines (SW and HW) converge in job description.
(Read the job descriptions, it's literally true.)
As the scope of the job increases technically, more of a senior person's
time becomes involved with non-technical work, such as scheduling,
skills assessment, even budgeting.  Next step, supervisor, then manager.
I like to describe it as "as a single very skilled person's ideas become
bigger and more important, they are too big for one person (the originator)
to execute by himself."  The originator needs help: subordinates.
There are rare instances where a technical person can rise very high
and stay technical.  Some companies or agencies have the position 
of "chief scientist" or the like, someone who can have big ideas
and staff of administrators to handle the details of execution.
I haven't seen this model work well at the more workaday level.

One undervalued career path for technical people seeking increased 
scope is product management.  DEC needs more technically skilled people
in product management positions.  In theory, the job of product manager
should allow more focus on the product and less on the traditional
management roles (not that it always works out that way).

- tom powers]

    Re .96:
    
    > As the scope of the job increases technically, more of a senior
    > person's time becomes involved with non-technical work, such as
    > scheduling, skills assessment, even budgeting.
    
    That's a mistake on Digital's part.  Certainly if somebody wants to get
    into that sort of work and shows an aptitude for it, Digital should let
    them, but that should not be the prescribed career path for technical
    people.  As an engineer gains experience and skills, let them do larger
    parts of the technical work -- but don't make them do scheduling,
    skills assessment, or budgeting.  "Gee, Fran can really code as fast as
    anybody I've seen.  Let's make her figure out a budget."  That doesn't
    make sense.  Somebody else ought to do the non-technical aspects of
    project management.
    
    If an engineer gains enough competence and their ideas are too big for
    one person to execute, then give them subordinates, but let them
    operate technically with those subordinates; don't burden them with
    management duties.  Let management act as support for a technical
    leader.
    
    There's still more that needs to be defined here.  One problem is that
    Digital is not good at assessing employee's capabilities and letting
    them fulfill them.  There are people who can program well (with proper
    technique) on a grand scale, yet Digital doesn't make use of their
    abilities.  Another problem is that Digital is a decade behind in
    software engineering techniques, so Digital's software projects grind
    themselves into masses of spaghetti that are cumbersome and difficult
    to manage.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Somehow, the company must get a bang for its buck.
    
    There must be some way in which a higher ranked technical contributor
    contributes "more".  
    
    The path described above implies that the company gets its reward
    because the individual contributor assumes more of the responsiblities
    of his/her boss.  What we need is to assure that the Principle Engineer
    and Consulting Engineer make continually increasing contributions in a
    technical way.  Presumably, this would mean the higher level engineer
    can achieve the same results as a team of lower level engineers with
    less effort.
    
    Reality is that many people with the title are not held to the higher
    productivity standard.  Not their fault, maybe, but that is what
    happens.
    
    How do we factor this in?
    
    Dick

>    If an engineer gains enough competence and their ideas are too big for
>    one person to execute, then give them subordinates, but let them
>    operate technically with those subordinates; don't burden them with
>    management duties.  Let management act as support for a technical
>    leader.

Leading subordinates is largely non-technical.  Their tasks have to be 
assigned and tracked.  Their technical resources (workstations, lab
equipment) have to be allocated, perhaps acquired and managed.  
Schedules need to be drafted, reviewed, and managed.
The fundamental premise of Brook's Law (The Mythical Man-Month) is that
communication swamps a team as the team grows (and swamps it mmore quickly
in response to a crisis, but that's another aspect).
Team communication needs to be managed (and I'll head off AND attract
further comment on that score by saying that I don't believe that team 
communication at this level can be entirely self-managed).

I think it's rare that we can find an individual who can contribute
"linearly extrapolating" value to an organization in a single area
of work - coding was the example in eric's rebuttal.
I won't dispute that such people exist, but I don't think there are very 
many of them.
I will leave open the question of whether a 20 lines of code a day
programmer is really, literally twice as productive and twice as valuable
as a 10 line a day programmer.

I also won't dispute that DEC and the industry at large could be more
imaginative about how to use the skills certain people have,
but I remain solid in my contention that prerequisites of advanced
technical contribution include team building skills, supervisory skills,
and ability and willingness to manage communications.

- tom]

    Anent .99: Tom, I've heard that many times before, and I believe it. 
    But I too maintain that for any profession, there's something wrong
    when the career advancement path seems to lead elsewhere.  While there
    are exceptions to every generalization, the great athletes don't make
    great managers, the great actors don't make great directors or
    producers, the great artists don't make great gallery owners, and the
    great programmers don't make great managers.  When we have a system
    that encourages talented people to leave or transform themselves into
    less-talented members of another profession, we (and here I mean
    Digital) do not benefit.

	But we don't need as many football coaches as footballers, we don't
	need as many directors as actors, and we don't need as many managers as
	programmers or operators or support staff.

	There are good people who make good managers, and we should help the
	good ones move into management if they want to, just like we help
	people who will be good at consulting move into consulting, and those
	who want move into project management move there, and those who want
	to continue programming to continue improving.

	Heather

re: .99,

> Leading subordinates is largely non-technical.

   	...if you desire a company lacking in technical leadership.

    	I think there is a big difference between the management
    and/or supervision of subordinates and the leadership and
    technical guidance of subordinates.

    	Take my latest VAXnotes personal name for example (see above),
    it was a common practice back in the Renaissance for master
    sculptors such as Leonardo Da Vinci or Michaelangelo to have
    an entire guild of apprentices to help them create their works
    of art (in fact, Michaelangelo was Leonardo's pupil).  Anyway,
    the master sculptors in these guilds would also sculpt, but
    as their guilds grew in size commensurate with their skill and
    popularity as artists, their duties became somewhat more advisory
    than labor-intensive.  The difference here is that these master
    sculptors did *not* simply trade-in their technical skills and
    adopt a management position in order to advance their careers!
    Instead, they remained technical while moving into a position of
    technical leadership.  I think it is high time this practice of
    Master and Apprentice (or a modern-day equivalent of it) should
    be adopted in our industry as well.

>    Their tasks have to be 
>    assigned and tracked.  Their technical resources (workstations, lab
>    equipment) have to be allocated, perhaps acquired and managed.  
>    Schedules need to be drafted, reviewed, and managed.

    	"Oh Leonardo, I need a new hammer!  And this chisel is all
    bent!  By the way Leonardo, I need tomorrow off because my mother
    is ill and I need to stay home with her, so can you process my
    timecard for me?  Also, can you do something about Michaelangelo,
    he's been such a prima donna lately!  Thanks!"  - yeah right! ;^)

    	Managers, supervisors, along with secretaries, custodians,
    security, etc., are all in place to keep a clean, well-rationed, 
    ship, as well as an adequately staffed and well-disciplined crew,
    but the engineers (the ones relied upon to know the details of
    how the ship operates) need to be provided with senior technical
    expertise and leadership if the ship is expected to smoothly sail
    from point a to point b without sinking.

    	Imagine a Starship Enterprise in which, instead of "Scottie",
    Captain Kirk had to talk to some technically-illiterate manager
    who would then talk to yet another technically-illiterate manager,
    who would then talk to yet another technically-illiterate manager,
    who would then talk to yet another technically-illiterate manager,
    who would then talk to yet another technically-illiterate manager,
    who would then talk to yet another technically-illiterate manager,
    who would finally talk to some Scottie-wannabe, and vice-versa,
    every time he needed up-to-the-minute information on the ship's
    engines?

        Now, in DEC's case, many organizations are fortunate enough
    to be staffed with some managers who also happen to have once been
    technically expert, but as DEC grew during the 80's their was a
    definite trend away from technical managers and towards generic
    or more traditional managers (the infamous MBA invasion).  Even
    the technical managers who have survived at DEC are most likely
    getting a little rusty in this *extremely* fast paced world we are
    trying to compete in (especially if, instead of designs, code, or
    support documents, etc., all they ever write anymore are reviews
    and management memos).

    	Whether or not DEC needs more non-technical managers is debatable,
    but to assume DEC can hobble along without technical *leadership*
    is a dangerous assumption!  I think DEC has picked-up more than its
    share of non-technical managers (perhaps too many), and what it now
    desperately needs is to expand the ranks of technical consultancy and
    help to create more technical "gurus" if it wants to survive as a
    leader of the technological industry (which is what DEC used to be).

    				  -davo

    I think that in the past, Digital had a problem with managers that were
    very technical.  They were out of touch with the customers because
    computers were a new thing and, compared to our managers, the customers
    weren't very technical.  The correct solution at that time would have
    been to have less technical managers because they could then have a
    better appreciation for their customers.  
    
    Now, our customers know about Mips, MBytes, cache, disk drives and all
    that.  They go home and plink on PCs in macro code or play intricate
    computer games for recreation.  They have become very technical.  I
    hear about managers that pride themselves on not being technical.  Some
    insist on having their mail in hardcopy and perhaps don't spend much
    time at the computer.
    
    Well, one thing hasn't changed.  Management is still out of touch with
    the customers.  Perhaps, if they were a bit more technical ... ;^)
    Really, the solution is the same now as it was then.  Managers need to
    do MBWA and need to talk to customers.  In the past, they needed to
    understand things from a non-technical point of view to understand
    customer needs.  Today, they need to understand things from a technical
    point of view to understand customer needs.  Just IMHO, of course. 
    
    Steve

>   <<< Note 1549.102 by TOOK::DMCLURE "Did Da Vinci move into management?" >>>
>
>re: .99,
>
> > Leading subordinates is largely non-technical.
>
>   	...if you desire a company lacking in technical leadership.
>
>    	I think there is a big difference between the management
>    and/or supervision of subordinates and the leadership and
>    technical guidance of subordinates.

And I agree.
I even think there is a difference between management and supervision.
It's a difference partly of degree, and partly of exclusion of certain
responsibilities.  To misquote the adage: "Manage projects, supervise people."
But I also stand by my comment that "Leading subordinates is largely 
non-technical" and I dispute that your conclusion necessarily follows.
Leading does involve technical guidance, but lots of other aspects.


>    	"Oh Leonardo, I need a new hammer!  And this chisel is all
>    bent!  By the way Leonardo, I need tomorrow off because my mother
>    is ill and I need to stay home with her, so can you process my
>    timecard for me?  Also, can you do something about Michaelangelo,
>    he's been such a prima donna lately!  Thanks!"  - yeah right! ;^)

I think that's a great story, and I think it's largely true!
If Leonardo was their "leader" as well as their mentor, he was in charge
of other aspects of their life.
Now any good manager (or even a supervisor) WILL delegate lots of aspects
of such oversight.  ("Go to Herman when your chisels break."  "Herman,
you are authorized to buy new chisels when the team needs them.")
But the delegator remains RESPONSIBLE for EVERYTHING under his or her charge.
("Herman, why are we spending so much on chisels?  The number used is up 
50% from last year, and it's costing me money!")
This takes time, time that is then not available for technical work
or technical leadership.
Staffers do valuable work, but they demand supervision too.

- tom]

re: .104,

    	Ok, maybe the master sculptor would have designated someone
    to be in charge of buying news hammers, but I think you are missing
    my point about the flaws in the career path of the modern-day technical
    engineer and why I think it is important to compare the modern
    business structure with that of the guilds in the Renasaince.

    	But first I need to clear up a couple of historical inaccuracies
    in my previous note.  First of all, while Michelangelo Buonarroti
    (note the corrected spelling) and Leonardo da Vinci were both
    Florentine artists who worked together in the same Craftsmen's
    guild, and that Leonardo (1452-1519) was somewhat older and more
    experienced than Michelangelo (1475-1564), it was probably not
    quite accurate to say that Michelangelo was Leonardo's "pupil"
    (their relationship could probably better be thought of as that
    of peers, acquaintances, friends, and at times even rivals).
    Also, I used the term "sculptor" a bit loosely in describing
    Leonardo da Vinci; as while Leonardo was originally apprenticed
    to the great sculptor Verrochio (1435-1488), Leonardo was better
    known for his paintings (as well as his engineering designs and
    inventions).  There are plenty of actual master-apprentice
    relationships of the era which I could mention instead such as
    Desiderio da Settignano, who was an apprentice to Donatello, who
    was in turn an apprentice to Ghiberti, etc..

    	My point however, was that it was not necessary, nor even
    desirable, for master Craftsmen to move into what we call management
    in order to succeed in their profession during the Renassaince.
    Instead, it was a common practice in the Renaissance for master
    Craftsmen such as Leonardo Da Vinci or Michelangelo to have an
    entire guild of journeymen and apprentices to help them create
    their works of art.  By working with the masters, apprentices
    as well as the more experienced journeymen would gain experience
    while many times performing much of the actual labor involved
    in works attributed to the master of their particular guild.
    Leonardo Da Vinci's first known painting, for example, was that
    of the angel in Verrochio's painting "Babtism of Christ" (the
    angel being arguably the best part of the painting).

    	In all of these cases, while the masters would most definitely
    provide guidance and supervision to the less experienced journeymen
    and apprentices of their guild, the masters were never forced to
    entirely divorce themselves from their craft in order to succeed
    in their profession the way the modern-day engineer must ultimately
    move into management in order to move ahead.  The fact that masters
    didn't need to move into management to succeed allowed them to keep
    creating and to continue to polish their skills and to achieve such
    greatness during their lifetimes.
    
    	Modern-day management is more of a descendant of the Merchants
    Guild, which, together with the Craftsmen's Guild, were the two
    most powerful guilds in Renaissance Italy.  Furthermore, the modern-
    day engineer, a direct descendant of what would then have been the
    Craftsmen's Guild, would never think of crossing over into the
    Merchant's Guild if they truly loved engineering and wished to
    excell in the engineering profession.  Instead, they work would
    towards becoming one of the great masters of their respective
    Guild (be it the Craftsmen's Guild, or what have you).

    				  -davo

    Anent .101: I've always wanted to meet you, Ms. Thomas.  If I may say
    so, your poster is one of my all-time favorites 8^)
    
    As to your point, we certainly do need more engineers than managers,
    and that's fine with me.  We just don't need any mechanisms that tend to
    push very talented, senior engineers out of the field involuntarily.
    
    There's been internal discussion for years about whether software
    engineers and technical writers were "professionals" or not.  One way
    to look at it (and I may have said this in DIGITAL before) is that a
    professional can make a career in the profession.  For example, an
    artist can stay an artist for life, a doctor can remain a doctor, an
    architect can remain an architect, a lawyer can remain a lawyer. 
    That's not to say there aren't professionals who change professions,
    but there isn't the pressure to get out the way there is, say, with
    waiters or paperboys.  Into which class do software engineers fall?
    We'd like to say the former, but the pressure to move into management
    (or product management) suggests the latter.

re: .105

It is NOT my contention that increased technical responsibility leads
necessarily to leaving the technical field entirely.
It IS my contention that increased technical responsibility changes 
the balance of one's work from purely technical to include more 
management or supervisory aspects, and as the scope of the technical
contribution expands to require the contribution and cooperation
of more indivuduals and other resources, the balance shifts more and more
towards the non-technical aspects.

I will agree that the "system" does not normally accommodate a person's 
desire to do both jobs (technical and managerial), each half-time.
Perhaps it's because people no longer trust non-specialists, 
considering them dilettants.

Could the examples of law and medicine be instructive?
How much law does a senior partner in a small to medium size firm practice?
How much medicine does a chief of staff of some specialty in a major
hospital practice?
Is it because these people remain essentially self-employed, and a certain
percentage of their time goes into self-management whatever their
professional level?

- tom]

PS: When did this discussion get off the track of volunteering 
for the package, and should it be moved to a new topic so it can continue
on this professional-advancement aspect?

>    Anent .101: I've always wanted to meet you, Ms. Thomas.  If I may say
>    so, your poster is one of my all-time favorites 8^)
 
	?????????? I think I need some American -->English translation

    
>    There's been internal discussion for years about whether software
>    engineers and technical writers were "professionals" or not.  One way
>    to look at it (and I may have said this in DIGITAL before) is that a
>    professional can make a career in the profession.  For example, an
>    artist can stay an artist for life, a doctor can remain a doctor, an
>    architect can remain an architect, a lawyer can remain a lawyer. 
>    That's not to say there aren't professionals who change professions,
>    but there isn't the pressure to get out the way there is, say, with
>    waiters or paperboys.  Into which class do software engineers fall?
>    We'd like to say the former, but the pressure to move into management
>    (or product management) suggests the latter.

	I would say software engineers and techinical writers are professionals
	(I was a software engineer, and my husband is a technical writer, so
	I also admi some bias   :-)    )
	Like lawyers and accountants are professionals...........

	We need all types of disciplines and people in the company. 
	Some skills are valued more than others, so some job ranges start and
	finish earlier than others.
	You can move towards the top of your profession in any of them.

	You might decide that you would like to move into a different stream, as
	you believe you can do a different job well that has a higher 
	finishing point.

	So, if you are an absolute wonderful software engineer, you won't get 
	as much salary as someone who is an absolute wonderful MD, or even and
	average MD, because the jobs are valued differently by the company.

	Saying this, we run different ways in the service centre, 
	depending on peoples skills.
	We have software engineers, we have consultants, we have managers who
 	have small teams, so can spend 50% of their time consulting/engineering
	and the other 50% managing from both a personal and technical 
	standpoint. We also have managers who manage 100%.
	It depends on the mix of skills, and the numers and mix of people.

	Some consultants are on higher grades than some of the managers to 
	whom the report. It's not a problem, they are being paid in accordance
	with the job they do, and how well they do it.

	At the end of the day, "you pay your money, and take your choice"

	Heather..............still wondering about the poster	

re: .107, etc.,

> PS: When did this discussion get off the track of volunteering 
> for the package, and should it be moved to a new topic so it can continue
> on this professional-advancement aspect?

    	How about we take this discussion to note #1577 (Leo's Promotion)...

    				  -davo

                                                                                
    >       Heather..............still wondering about the poster               
                                                                                
       Hi Heather,                                                             
                                                                                
       Heather Thomas was a popular actress on an American TV series 
       a few years back, (I forget which) and was popular for a 
       couple of bikini posters she did. 
     
       Mark
    

	... Heather LOCKLEAR, of "Dynasty"(?) and "T. J. Hooker", the police
drama with William Shatner running around trying to have a heart attack!

	If this doesn't fill the rathole, I don't know WHAT will! :>)

    Heather Locklear, too, is an American actress/poster girl.

	Do you think I can persuade them that they should pay me the commission?


	The real Heather Thomas.

Maybe if you changed your personal name.

Re <<< Note 1549.87 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Royal Pane and Glass Co." >>>:

>    	Is it also illegal when a gas station sees that it has its
>    	prices set too high/low relative to the other 3 stations at
>    	the same intersection and then adjusts its prices accordingly?

In the People's Republic, it is illegal for a gas station to change prices more
than once a day.  It is also illegal for them to sell gas at a loss (except when
allowing for the contents of the tanks when the entire business changes hands).

I presume these statutes were enacted to preclude anti-competitive price-wars. 
Someone else can describe what equivalent practices would be for computer
companies who hire professional employees.
				/AHM