Conference 7.286::digital

The "corporate directive", as you phrased it, was issued by an individual.
If you want to get the decision reversed, you will have to locate this
individual and persuade her or him that reversing the decision is in the
company's best interests.  Alternatively, you can go over this person's
head and try to persuade their manager to override the decision.  In any
event, the first two steps are (1) find out who made the decision, and
(2) present a well-argued business case for reversing the decision to this
person or somebody higher up on their managerial chain of command.

--PSW

    "CS" became "DS" (Digital Services) in the last
    re-name/re-organization.
    
    The transfer of a good manager to a district that needs one is a
    decision that, if it doesn't work out, will be on the record of the DM
    involved and the manager who made the decision to reassign.
    
    Go ahead and appeal, but my advice is don't bother, and save your
    voice for things that you have a chance of influencing.

    But if it is broke, then try to fix it!  Maybe from the perspective of
    the manager who initiated the transfer, (s)he was trying to fix a
    problem in another location while (hopefully) not "breaking" an
    organization that may have the ability to run well more-or-less on it's
    own (given the experience gained under the good DM).  
    
    I'm just a engineer.  What do I know of such matters.  But my
    experiences in hardware have taught me that sometimes it's necessary
    to reshuffle resources, "give" a little here, "take" from there, to
    make the overall system run as well as it can.  
    
    One last thought, if the appeals are loud and widespread, you might
    find that they'll backfire... giving the higher manager the idea that
    this DM is even better than (s)he thoughtand will boost morale in the
    new group as well.
    
    Just saying there's two sides to every story
    
    Dave

    The merger of CS and EIS left DS with a double set of DMs (phew!).  My
    guess is that the best of the DMs are remaining DMs, and the rest are
    being reshuffled.  Your old DM proved him/herself capable of fixing a
    broken district.  So my guess is that they are moving that DM into
    another broken district, and giving you a DM that maybe can't fix
    something broken, but won't break something fixed.
    
    Mary

    
    	Look at it this way:
    
    	If your DM was effective in his old job, then he will be effective
    	in his new job. This will help the company.
    
    	Give your new DM a chance to prove him/herself before you decide
    	that the district will fail. The attitude of the "troops" probably
    	has a bigger effect on success/failure than who the DM is.
    
    	The fact that your new DM "doesn't appear" to have CS background 
    	does not necessarily mean that he/she will not do an effective job.
    	Your old DM will most probably have told the new DM about how the
    	district works, and your new DM will most probably try to maintain
    	the district in the same manner. This would be in his/her interests
    	to do so.
    
    	As an aside, changing of the guard is a good thing in many cases.
    	It spreads expertise around the corporation, gives people different
    	views of managing and being managed, and prevents "old-boy" net-
    	works from becoming too firmly entrenched. Change can sometimes
    	be frightening because of the uncertainty of the unknown, but
    	approach it as an "opportunity" and you'll most likely benefit from
    	it.
    
    	Don't even bother trying to appeal the decision. But I would en-
    	courage you to talk to your managers, especially your new DM, about
    	what the new DM's perceptions and expectations of the district are.
    
    	John 

    
    Corporate law #99: the good ones always leave early or die young.
    
    

    Why is it that every time something changes, the first assumption is
    that something negative is going to happen?
    
    Give the new DM a chance.  You never know, they may even be better than
    the current one.  If you don't let them get in the water, you'll never
    know if they can swim.

As the originator of the base note, it seems that I should finish this note.

The main reason for the base note:  After the meeting where we were notified
of the changes, several people expressed the desire to retain our "old" DM if
it were possible.  In my seventeen years with DEC, I don't recall of anything
ever being done to counter such DECisions, so I brought it here to the "world"
for your thoughts.  I was on vacation the following week, so I could not be
there to participate in any discussions had I chose to do so.  I wish to thank
all those who took the time to reply.

re: .4  - You are correct.  The stat we heard was that we went from 45 to 16
          DM's.  That a little more than twice!  That being the case, the 16
          left have got to be the "cream of the crop".

re: .5  - We met with the new DM this past week, and he has a very positive
          outlook and seems very energetic.  He is actually merging five groups
          into one, so it is not just a matter of EIS and CS combining.

re: .7  - Loyalty to the known, uncertainty of the unknown, and resistance to
          change are all factors.  It was not a "first assumption" that some-
          thing negative was going to happen, but "What if".  In the last 11
          years we've had 9 DM's (and 3 or 4 more than that since I've been
          thru 17 years worth) and several more UM's.  And our district has
          gone thru several reorgs before; we have survived and will continue
          to survive.  Of that I have no doubt.

I look forward to working with the new DM, and contributing as I can to his
success.  Again, thanks to those who replied.