| Title: | The Digital way of working |
| Moderator: | QUARK::LIONEL ON |
| Created: | Fri Feb 14 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 5321 |
| Total number of notes: | 139771 |
The discussion in 1704 about promotions and career planning made me
remember this article.
Is there any validity to what Dr. Shechtman says? If so, how can we at
Digital use this knowledge? Is this a "gloom and doom" conclusion?
How can we adjust?
Steve
***************************************************************
Reprinted without permission
"Risk is now the byword on the job, expert says"
By Susan Harte, Staff Writer
Atlanta Journal/Constitution
11 December 1991
There was a time when the biggest risk involved with work was
getting there every day.
Now, the office assails people with a dizzying array of threats
and uncertainties. Unhappily, declares business consultant Morris R.
Shechtman, the bombardment won't stop. The yearning for the good old
days is in vain.
The quintessential adjustment people need to make right now, he
says, is accepting the new reality. It is this: Safety, security,
paternalism, loyalty and all the other traditional trappings of
corporate life are gone.
Risk has replaced them all.
Accepting the new order
People who thrive in the high-risk environment, Dr. Shechtman told
a local executives' forum Tuesday, will be those who can tolerate -
every single day - the idea that vulnerability, uncertainty and
unpredictability are the norm for the foreseeable future.
High-risk people are those who are adapting and developing a level
of tolerance, he said. Low-risk people spend their days helplessly
lamenting what is gone for good.
"People need to develop the 'profile' for the risk-filled work
environment," he added, because "changes will only accelerate. We
will have to adapt on a moment's notice and still have a sense of
self."
Although "change" should not imply "chaos," nearly all of us came
from a background that assumed, taught and rewarded low-risk living.
Thus, turning on a dime now is easier said than done. But the more
someone shuns and fears unpredictability, the more likely there will
be an unhealthy reaction to it, Dr. Shechtman noted.
Things people do
Some of the pathological things that people do, usually
subconsciously, to maximize comfort in increasingly high-risk
environments include:
<> Using the executive suite to reproduce the familiar.
The boss's secretary is a raving shrew and his second-in-command a
gutless wonder. No one can fathom why he hired these people, much
less why he's oblivious to their destructiveness.
There is a reason. Subconsciously, he has brought Mama and Papa
to work. They may be jerks, but they're his jerks.
<> People resist believing that there's such a thing as "too much
support."
Large segments of the culture are so accustomed to managerial
paternalism that they can't be "empowered". Independence, which
requires self-direction and true accountability, is far too
frightening.
<> Some folks expect inappropriate rewards and end up stuck in
immaturity.
A pat on the head is nice. But when managers go to extremes over
long periods of time, people will come to work only to be validated,
rather than to do the job.
<> Under the guise of prudence, people obsess over decisions to avoid
making them, which avoids taking chances.
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1707.1 | How should we adapt as Digital or as ICs? | MAY21::PSMITH | Peter H. Smith,MLO5-5/E71,223-4663,ESB | Tue Dec 31 1991 21:31 | 66 |
> The quintessential adjustment people need to make right now, he
> says, is accepting the new reality. It is this: Safety, security,
> paternalism, loyalty and all the other traditional trappings of
> corporate life are gone.
>
> Risk has replaced them all.
Clearly this trend is occurring in the computer industry. You ask how
we should adapt. Do you mean as a corporation or as individuals?
As a corporation, I would suggest that we reward correct responses to
risk. Reward the employees who become more self-directed, and who work
to keep abreast of and adapt to change on an individual basis. These
may or may not be the people who agree with the directions of the
company or their immediate management (I really don't know).
I firmly believe that part of establishing such a reward system
involves dismantling stovepipes, feifdoms, and barriers to peer
communication. A side effect of this is flattening of the management
heirarchy...
What should my response be as an individual? You can see from other
notes I have entered that I am struggling with this, and that I am a
bit cynical about the situation (OK, I'm very cynical :-).
I can say that I always had the impression that, in our economic
system, potential reward should be proportional to risk taken. (That's
why commercial loans paid more interest than home mortgages -- the
person taking the loan had to pay the mortager for the added risk of
losing their capital).
So, working for yourself, you stand to lose your shirt, but if you're
good (or lucky) you make a bundle. Working for a startup, you stand to
lose half your shirt, but if the product is good (or someone got lucky)
the president (biggest risk take) makes a bundle and you get a bonus.
Working for a large corporation, you (used to) stand to lose little,
and could expect just an "attaboy" (and maybe some under the table comp
time) for busting your tail on that big demo. The company succeeds on
the average, because on average it's good (or lucky).
Many corporate executives will probably lap up the goop the writer of
that article produced. After all, he' paid by them so he needs to make
them feel good about passing the risks to their subordinates while
keeping a large percentage of the rewards for their {skill|luck} to
themselves.
But if capitalism works, you'll see one of two trends along with this
"you gotta like risk" trend:
1. Large corporations will start to pay salaries which are more
in line with the industry average (haven't we seen this start
to happen at Digital?)
2. Mismanaged corporations won't update the cliches in their
hiring literature: "Our salaries are competive even though
we're offering you 10% less, because we {are more stable|
have better benefits|offer varied career paths|never had
a layoff}".
They'll pass on the risk without raising the salaries. And over
time they'll find that their productivity is dropping because
their employees are discovering that the garage down the street
is offering similar stability, benefits, and maybe even better
growth potential with the same risk. (It's hard to tell whether
this is happening at Digital -- we'll have to wait and see which
corporations come out of the shakedown in good shape).
| |||||
| 1707.2 | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 | Tue Dec 31 1991 22:55 | 16 | |
If managers start telling me that I have to expect the same risks
working for the Corporation as I would have being out on my own, I'm
out o' here. Such would indicate to me that we no longer have
commitments. And, if I'm going to be taking the risks, there's nothing
to keep me from pusuing the rewards.
I expect to negotiate commitments between myself and management. If they
will not commit, neither will I. But, if we reach agreements, we both
commit and they seem to honor their commitments, I will walk on water for
them. That's the kind of management I am accustomed to dealing with at
Digital and at other companies I've worked for. I am deeply saddened when
I read sordid accounts of managers who seem unwilling to live up to and
honor commitments to their subordinates. That's no way to encourage
any kind of reciprocation of commitment.
Steve
| |||||
| 1707.3 | Others will disagree, I'm sure | BUZON::BELDIN_R | Pull us together, not apart | Fri Jan 03 1992 11:35 | 11 |
re <<< Note 1707.2 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN "ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326" >>> >... That's the kind of management I am accustomed to dealing with at > Digital and at other companies I've worked for. The kind of griping we often see here suggests that like beauty, good management lies in the eye of the beholder. fwiw, Dick | |||||