Conference 7.286::digital

What value might obtain from courting communication with managers who refuse to
commit themselves in their own domain of responsibility?
				/AHM

     Good question, Alan.  I've shared your misgivings, too, but -- let's
     perhaps envision what once might have been & yet could be, and say
     "Why not?"
     
     One possibility:  Managers are social animals, as are we all.  They
     compete, as should we all.  If "Lynn" notices that "Robin's" group
     performs better because of better communication (-:not their real
     names:-), then perhaps Robin's methods will spread.
     
     A corollary possibility:  Managers who practise such better 
     communication will promote others with the same style.             
     
     I'm NOT saying that ALL debates & decisions be done openly; only that
     imho we have the means at our disposal to do better.  All we need is
     the will to start changing the culture, a bit at a time...
                                                                            Dan

    MBWA using technology...what a concept!!!
    
    Since MBWA in a multi-location, worldwide company is very difficult to
    do, what about teaching high-level management about VAXnotes.  What a
    great way to hear what the rank-and-file are thinking without being
    obtrusive.  
    
    Hello...are any VP's out there?

Re .2:

Dan - note that I didn't ask, "why talk to managers"?  I asked, "why talk to
managers who say one thing and do another"?
				/AHM/THX

     Well, one answer might be "I'm not advocating improved communication
     only to managers who MAY have already weakened their credibility with
     their troops.  I'm speaking to all managers who would like BETTER
     communication, (and yes, I'm including those wanting to improve from
     a weakened status), and urging them to try more MBWA/MBNA."
     
     These are times for reassessment.  I believe (without proof & other
     things being equal) that groups practicing more MBWA/MBNA will have
     less turnover, more ontime deliveries, and happier customers.  Such
     results will, I hope, tend to change either the behavior or the
     employment of Managers who say one thing and do something else.
     
     Don't think it'll work in your group?  Then encourage other groups'
     Management to try it...  couldn't hurt...? 
                                                                            Dan

  I'm not sure the noting population is very representative of the DEC
  employee population as a whole.  My gut feel is that 10-20 individuals
  in any given notesfile write 90% of the notes (or at least 90% of the
  lines of text entered).  It's like a "self-selected" survey population
  (which is notoriously unreliable according to most pollsters).

  To make MBNA work i think the company would also have to *actively*
  encourage noting by a much larger percentage of the employee population
  ...and this seems to fly in the face of what most managers would like
  to see happen.  Most can barely keep up with their own E-mail.

  What's the point of Bob Palmer engaging in a Notes dialogue with 10 or
  20 or even 200 noting loud-mouths when the 89799 (remaining ;-)) DEC
  employees may have little in common with the 200?  Waste of his time.

  (That said, i'd be pleased to hear that BP or some of his top folks
  occasionally "took the temperature" of the employee base by perusing
  the issues discussed in this notesfile.  Why?  I dunno...)

								paul

     Good point.  It brings out another unspoken assumption that I was
     making: that when Management USES any electronic medium, it tends
     greatly to LEGITIMIZE and BROADEN THE BASE of that medium.  I've
     observed this many times from the earliest days of EMail, and I
     believe there's organizational development data to support this. 
     
     There's hope that the inevitable increased PC literacy among
     Management (and their support folks), coupled with more useable
     client SW for EMail, VAXNotes, and other forms of dialog, will also
     help lower the threshold for participation.  If it's easier to learn
     and do, and "fits in" with other keyboard-based activity, and is
     time-efficient, then imho it's more likely.
     
     None of this discussion, I hope, takes away from the other half of
     the thrust of the basenote -- the desirability of WANDERING
     around...? 
                                                                            Dan

Re .5:

>     Well, one answer might be "I'm not advocating improved communication
>     only to managers who MAY have already weakened their credibility with
>     their troops.  I'm speaking to all managers who would like BETTER
>     communication, (and yes, I'm including those wanting to improve from
>     a weakened status), and urging them to try more MBWA/MBNA."

To compare and contrast:

.0>     I hasten to add that I _understand_ the reluctance of busy managers
.0>     to commit themselves, in writing, on controversial matters, or to
.0>     make statements that could be construed as conflicting with their
.0>     fiduciary responsibility.  Surely though, in the newer "leaner" (if
.0>     not meaner) DEC, we can take advantage of the hierarchy-flattening
.0>     capability that electronic conferencing offers, without violating
.0>     "Official Channels."

I *expect* management to be able to commit themselves, in whatever medium they
choose to use, on controversial matters, in agreement with their
responsibilities (in their roles as *part* of "Official Channels").

.0>     Don't think it'll work in your group?  Then encourage other groups'
.0>     Management to try it...  couldn't hurt...?

My cost center manager is a member of this conference.  When we got a new
supervisor on Friday, I pointed her at our internal team conference less than
half a day after the official announcement.

But no one's been enticing anyone with the notion that they can dodge issues
just because of the nature of the medium.  I can distinguish personal opinion
from policy statement, and I consider both grist for notes files.
				/AHM

    Managers who post note entries and basically "communicate" put
    themselves at risk.  We CANNOT compare the risks managers take with the
    risks grunts take.  This is because managers are paid to not make
    mistakes.  Grunts are paid to do lots of smart things.  It's generally 
    okay if a grunt mistakenly posts a "silly" response.  Risk of anything 
    adverse happening as far as a career is pretty small.  It's not okay if 
    a manager posts a "silly" response.  All kinds of bad things can happen.  
    Weigh that against the benefits, and I can see why a high-level manager 
    would prefer to pretend that "notes" doesn't even exist.
    
    Reminds me of a scene in the movie, "Dr. Strangelov."  The President
    of the United States (Peter Sellers) is on the red phone with the
    President of Russia (referred to as Demitri?).  He has to notify him
    that a crazed American general just launched an unprovoked nuclear 
    attack against Russia:
    
    "Demitri?  You see, one of our generals ... well, he did a silly thing ..."
    
    Steve

On the contrary, managers are paid to make lots of mistakes. The secret of
success is to try to make new mistakes only and learn well from them.

Risk averse management is poor management. And if senior managers are going
to make fools of themselves, Notes only serves to cut down the mean-time-to-
discovery ;-)
								- Ian W.

	re .10:

>On the contrary, managers are paid to make lots of mistakes. The secret of
>success is to try to make new mistakes only and learn well from them.
>
>Risk averse management is poor management. 

	...but there may well be many managers in Digital who are measured
	on not making any mistakes. Pardon me, I'll rephrase that - "who
	are measured on not being seen to make any mistakes". They might
	well have decided on a policy of "we won't talk! you can't make us!"

	No names no pack drill - and of course nobody I ever knew would
	fall in this category.

	/Tom

The JP&R with my boss doesn't mention mistakes. It says "no surprises"...
but that leaves ample room (you just articulate the risks and the worst
possible downside before you move to execution).
								- Ian W.

    I don't expect Management to COMMIT itself prematurely,  and I'm
    willing to forgive a certain amount of waffling when a decision MUST be
    reached privately and only then made public.  That's the reality of a
    medium like NOTES or MAIL whose more controversial text almost
    inevitably "leaks" to customers within nanoseconds. :-)

    What I _do_ expect (with some hope and some reality; there are those
    valued & respected few top managers who DO do MBNA) is that Management
    should participate in some sort of electronic discussion(s); this will
    both validate the medium and ensure that Management gets to hear some
    far-flung truths.  
    
    Hierarchy-flattening is valuable in a fast-moving technology-driven
    industry like ours.  There are very few other ways, imho, through which
    we can quickly raise the "intellectual metabolic rate" -- or the
    MORALE -- of our enterprise to levels where it can survive.  We disuse
    such methods at our peril, methinks... 
    
    None of this discussion of the value of mbNa should be taken as
    DEvaluing mbWa, which imho could stand to be practiced still more.