Conference 7.286::digital

    Maybe a informal Employee's Union would be a good idea. Unfortunately
    Unions have such negative connotations because they always end up
    being trade restrictive and as bad as the bureaucracy they are
    fighting. But what you are suggesting is what a Union is meant to me
    (not what they actually turn out to be). I know in Digital Germany they
    have a "Workers Council" maybe someone from that could advise people in
    the USA how to set one up here.
    
    Dave

Let the head of Personnel follow David Stone's lead and mandate that Formal
Inspection will be used on all official documents.  Since Personnel Policy
is consumed by individual contributors, there should of course be a
representative consumer on the inspection team.
				/AHM

    This sounds like a good idea. I don't think we want of need anything
    as strong as a union or even the German "workers council" but some
    sort of "focus group" would seem to be a good idea. I don't think it's
    any great secret that many in Digital believe, rightly or wrongly, that
    upper management is out of touch with the rank and file. This could go
    a ways toward bridging that gap in both reality and perception. It
    would also allow so real two way communication up and down the chain.

    All you really need is a group of people that management could meet 
    with informally on a regular or as needed basis and discuss ideas with.
    Face to face with open discussion and complete confidentiality would 
    allow all sorts of ideas to be floated and discussed. It would be
    better to discuss even the most wild ideas this way than have so-so
    ideas beaten up, with resulting loss of credibility, in Notes or, worse
    still, the media.

    One problems would be picking the people so as to insure both
    diversity and that the members wouldn't just tell management what ever
    they want to hear. You'd probably want to pick some people who already 
    have a reputation for telling it like it is. Those with 1 reviews and
    politically correct views (ie. brown nosers :-)) would be prime
    candidates if some managers had their way but 2-3 reviews and trouble
    makers are more likely to be productive in such a role. Though you
    still have to find people that management can trust.

    		Alfred

    
    RE: .1
    
    What I had in mind was nothing like a union.  More like employee
    involvement groups that help improve a process, product, etc.  There
    would be no decision making or collective bargaining.  Simply a way of
    harnessing the vast range of experience and knowledge that exists
    within DEC for the betterment of the company.  DEC management doesn't
    know everything and shouldn't be expected to.  Good ideas and
    information can come from *anybody*.  There needs to be a more
    efficient means of getting those valueable ideas and feedback directly
    to the people making decisions within DEC.
    
    RE: .3
    
    Yes, getting the right mixture of people would be critical.  Political
    correctness, brown-nosing or any thing else that interferes with the
    free flow of ideas would render something like this useless.  It would take
    people who aren't afraid of expressing themselves, and management that
    isn't afraid to hear and consider what might be said.  The objective is 
    to get as much information into the hands of decision-makers as possible.
    Right now I believe this is where we are failing.  
    
    We have the people with the ideas/feedback.  We have the means of 
    implementing the collection of those ideas/feedback.  We need to merge
    those into a process that is mutually beneficial to management,
    employees and DEC.  Can you image the teamwork environment this would
    create?
    

                    <<< Note 2343.4 by GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ >>>
                            -< Harness the energy >-

    
>    information can come from *anybody*.  There needs to be a more
>    efficient means of getting those valueable ideas and feedback directly
>    to the people making decisions within DEC.
    
>    We have the people with the ideas/feedback.  We have the means of 
>    implementing the collection of those ideas/feedback.  We need to merge
>    those into a process that is mutually beneficial to management,
>    employees and DEC.  Can you image the teamwork environment this would
>    create?
    
For your information, part of the vision that the DELTA program has for Digital
includes exactly the concept that you have put forth.  We have already
built a piece of software called The TQM Integrator which includes a module
for storing and sharing information about teams and the projects they are
working on as well as ideas from ndividuals.  We have borrowed the phase the 
Knowledge Network, to explain the concept.  If you want to learn more about 
it check out VTX DELTA.

The vision that we have for employee involvement is recognized OUTSIDE of 
Digital as best-in-class and we are consulting with some top companies and 
being benchmarked by many.  We are making inroads inside but you know what 
they say about the cobbler's children. . . .

    
    This discussion would not need to happen if there where involved and
    concerned management in place. So what makes us think,wish,hope that a
    planel or committee would help in addressing policy, that in most cases
    does not effect that level of management. Let things change, and let
    the whole employee body react. That will gives us a more accurate
    amount of ture impact, on the company as a whole. And hopefully
    there will be mechanism to use to help correct these issues. Until
    there a conscious change from upper management to value what the
    employee has to offer, let the squeaky wheel have the grease.
    
    
    

           Here! Here!  I wholeheartedly agree!  It seems that DEC has
           been going backwards in Employee Involvement the past few
           years.  I've heard the words, but haven't seen the action.
           Those in power DO NOT want to give it up.  It seems like the
           military (though I've never served)... we get the orders and
           we MARCH!  People are afraid to say something is stupid or
           dumb, for fear of getting axed next time around.  Where is
           TQM?  NO, not just the words, the programs and the rhetoric,
           but the real actions from our management teams...
                      
           Steve

First off, I think a union is the *last* thing we need around here - yet
another monstrous bureaucracy - a permanent live-in marriage counselor
for an unhappy marriage.

Second, the reason we're even having this discussion is because upper
management is completely out of touch with reality. I've been working with
Jack Smith for the last several years, and he's shocked by what I tell him
but ends up not accomplishing anything to improve the situation. The only
thing I can think of is that it's just so bad that he doesn't even want to
know how bad it is.

While DELTA is a good idea, it has no teeth. I remember having the discussion
with DELTA people a few years ago and that's what a DELTA representative said.
All they can do is forward an idea to the appropriate source for the source
to do something or nothing.

My vision of the way a corporation should be is that there are managers
(including financial people) who are responsible for the process, and
workers (not wishing to imply that managers don't work but I need some
term here) responsible for doing the work that gets shipped to the customer.
It's a symbiotic relationship. Personnel should be the "glue" that
facilitates both groups performing working well together.

The vision (above) has broken down at Digital. Management rules by
intimidation and retribution, facilitated by personnel. The soul of Digital
has died. The question is whether it will be resurrected.

We now have new management in the form of Bob Palmer. He is somewhat of an
outsider and says all the right things, but so far has not shown me that
he really means what he says about integrity and open doors. He has the
opportunity and the power to really clean up personnel and management.
I believe I can speak for a majority of employees that
I've heard rumors that he is doing so, but I've yet to see any improvement.
For him to be able to clean up management in a way that we can all be
proud, he must understand that there is in fact a problem. Given that
he is entrusting the cleanup of management to the same people who were
part of the problem under Ken, I don't see how anybody could possibly
think that anything will change, although I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Getting back to Phil's original idea, for now, I think that his suggestion
is an excellent one. The people in management *must* get data directly
from people willing to be outspoken about what's wrong. The first step in
fixing something is being willing to admit that it's wrong.

I've been trying to speak directly with Bob Palmer and with Win Hindle
but, sad to say, both have refused to meet with me. I have a number of
ideas of how to improve morale, but as far as I can tell, they're not
listening. A group of us dedicated a good amount of our time to cleaning
up DCU in spite of major retribution against some of our group from places
very high up in the personnel department but we perservered. We beat them.
I believe we can do the same thing here at DEC. If Bob Palmer really wants to
clean up the management and make the corporation back into one that we
can truely be proud of, the data is there. All he has to do is ask and
be open to it rather than to sweep it under the carpet. I've volunteered
to be part of the cleanup, but so far, nothing.

re Note 2343.7 by QETOO::SCARDIGNO:

>            People are afraid to say something is stupid or
>            dumb, for fear of getting axed next time around.  

        I think that this is a natural side-effect of moving to an
        environment where you might actually be terminated for
        something short of grand theft.

        The "old Digital" was secure, both for those who did little
        or nothing and for those who took well-intentioned risks of
        one kind or another.

        The "new Digital" may be perceived as insecure by both kinds
        of people (as well as for those who are just doing a good
        job :-).

        Bob

re .8:

	Paul,

	Two points:

>The vision (above) has broken down at Digital. Management rules by
>intimidation and retribution, facilitated by personnel. The soul of Digital
>has died. The question is whether it will be resurrected.

	Actually, it appears to me that the soul of *Digital* *is* management 
	rule by intimidation and retribution, facilitated by personnel.
	As opposed to the soul of *DEC*, which was something completely 
	different.

>A group of us dedicated a good amount of our time to cleaning
>up DCU in spite of major retribution against some of our group from places
>very high up in the personnel department but we perservered. We beat them.
>I believe we can do the same thing here at DEC. 


	A fundamental difference between this, and the DEFCU fight: To win the
	DEFCU fight "all" we had to do was convince the membership of the
	DEFCU of what was going on, and to vote accordingly. There were
	88,000 of them, but "all" we really had to reach were around
	8,000 of them, roughly 10%.

	In order to change Digital, the option of going over the heads of
	the BoD and management to the stockholders is essentially 
	non-existant. Instead, we need to reach the BoD *and* upper
	management. Virtually every one. 

	And some of those that fought against reform of the DEFCU are
	some of the same people who will need to be faced in this area 
	as well, and I expect that they are itching to even the score. 

	It'll be a hard fight. Count me in :-) but I dunno what I can
	do...

				Tom_K

    
    I think we're rat-holing here.  This isn't the same situation and I'm
    not suggesting similar treatment.  We *OWNED* DCU and had rights as
    owners.  We do not own DEC (though many of us are stockholders) but we
    all have a very big stake in getting the company back on its feet ASAP.
    
    Does anybody have any experience with companies that have employee
    committees for quality improvement or anything else?  I envision something
    similar except at a slightly higher level.  I just don't see DEC senior
    management interfacing with the average DEC employee except via a DVN
    broadcast and Digital Today articles.  All one way communication and
    after decisions or announcements are made.  But changing this would
    require a commitment by both employees and management to make it happen
    and productive.  At least Jack Smith was willing to open his door for
    some two-way dialog.  No matter what your opinion of the man, I
    think that says a lot about him.  The question is do other high level
    managers appreciate or welcome this type of interaction?  I believe
    employees are willing to put forth the extra effort.
    
    Is this is a waste of time or is it worth pursuing?

RE: .5
    
>For your information, part of the vision that the DELTA program has for Digital
>includes exactly the concept that you have put forth.  We have already
>built a piece of software called The TQM Integrator which includes a module
>for storing and sharing information about teams and the projects they are
>working on as well as ideas from ndividuals.  We have borrowed the phase the 
>Knowledge Network, to explain the concept.  If you want to learn more about 
>it check out VTX DELTA.

    Thanks Maxine for pointing this out.  I'll check it out as some as the
    database becomes accessible.  Do you know if DEC senior management
    reads, accesses or uses any of this information in their decision
    making process?
    
>The vision that we have for employee involvement is recognized OUTSIDE of 
>Digital as best-in-class and we are consulting with some top companies and 
>being benchmarked by many.  We are making inroads inside but you know what 
>they say about the cobbler's children. . . .
    
    How do DELTA users rate DELTA?
    

The issue is whether the folks at the top are interested. There's no
shortage of ideas and committment by employees. I think we all learned that
from the DCU campaign. In spite of all that upper management old guard has
done to discourage employees, there are still plenty of folks who still
care deeply about this company who would help out if asked. Unfortunately,
I'm afraid that any of the high level
management that might be following this notes file are the same ones
who opposed the DCU movement. But we proved that we can make a difference
at DCU in spite of some high level managers' misuse of their power. And we
can make a difference at DEC. High level managers will put forth that we
are attempting to bring down the company - the same thing they charged us
with during the DCU campaign. But nothing could be further from the truth.
I am doing this *because* I care about the company. I cannot keep silent
when I see management destroying the essence of what I hold dear.

However,  the word never makes it to Bob Palmer, or
at least it doesn't make it in an unfiltered state. It takes enough people
to say the same thing that they can't ignore the message. A small group
of people can be sandbagged. A whole pile of people can make a difference,
each in his own way whether by talking to other folks or writing memos
or whatever.

There is an appropriate quote I saw on a video last weekend, called
"The Power of One" from the book by Bryce Courtenay:

"Changes can come from the power of many but only when the many come
together to form that which is invincible... the power of one."

    
    Dave
    
    This concept of employee involvement in digitals future is worth while
    but unfortunatly I'm not sure this is the best time to implement. I for
    one can't find time for day to day field/customer/multivendor issues
    and its safe to say that across most aspects of the field today.
    Secondly I'm not sure anyone at middle managerment and above cares what
    the employee thinks. I could go into great detail on numerous ideas
    that have been made in are field organization, that could be used as
    the definition for common sense, but just fall on deaf ears. I believe
    the goal of upper management is to turn up the heat in the kitchen and
    see how many employees can stand it. I hope I'm wrong because I believe
    that with out employee feedback and management participating and
    communicating there is a dark cloud on the horizion.
    
    Bill Sevic

	I have proposed some time ago to my management, that they should support
	creating a "Future Club" for our site. The ultimate goal would be to have
	similar clubs in other sites as well.

	The purpose of this future club would be to give employees a forum
	to discuss all aspects of work related issues:
		-What will be dominating technologies of tomorrow ?
		-What are the forms of IT business ?
		-What are the services customers are willing to pay enough
		 to make profit ?
		-What kind of professionals / capabilities are needed tomorrow ?
		-etc

	To differentiate this from Notes discussions or other unformal methods,
	this club should have clear rules and should define clear goals to
	achieve - like a study paper to be produced and level of increased
	knowledge among members in a specified time limit - to truly benefit
	both participating employees and our employer.

	Some of the benefits:
		-Increased understanding of technologies and business
		-May sparc some sellable services
		-Input from a wide expertise base among employees to product / 
		 business mgmt
		-Real life teamwork training/ experience
		-Real life written and spoken presentations training
		
	This requires support from the management to allow better information
	gathering and occassionally to get related training. This also means that
	the club should have a close connection especially with training and
	consultancy programs.

	And NO, I don't believe that this club could operate during business
	hours. This needs to be an evening exercise with voluntary participation.
	Some organising work probably needs to be done during office hours.

	I would really like some input from others who might be interested in
	this. I have a paper with has more details but I wouldn't want this
	to be my plan but rather from the start a joint effort from the employees.
	
	Ritva Siren @VBO
.

                   <<< Note 2343.12 by GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ >>>
                                  -< Thanks >-

RE: .5
    
>For your information, part of the vision that the DELTA program has for Digital
>includes exactly the concept that you have put forth.  We have already
>built a piece of software called The TQM Integrator which includes a module
>for storing and sharing information about teams and the projects they are
>working on as well as ideas from ndividuals.  We have borrowed the phase the 
>Knowledge Network, to explain the concept.  If you want to learn more about 
>it check out VTX DELTA.
>
>    Thanks Maxine for pointing this out.  I'll check it out as some as the
>    database becomes accessible.  Do you know if DEC senior management
>    reads, accesses or uses any of this information in their decision
>    making process?

I would doubt that they access the database, but we are asked from time to 
time what kind of ideas have come in about certain topics.  Over the last few 
months we have been a sensing mechanism for the sales support hotline, the
Art Library, the benefits changes.  If you are interested in access to the
TQM Integrator, give me a call or send a message and I will give you
instructions.
    
>The vision that we have for employee involvement is recognized OUTSIDE of 
>Digital as best-in-class and we are consulting with some top companies and 
>being benchmarked by many.  We are making inroads inside but you know what 
>they say about the cobbler's children. . . .
>    
>    How do DELTA users rate DELTA?
    
Our customers are Digital employees, we have never surveyed management, but
we are still here :*).  Understand that the ideas support work that we do 
is about 20-25% of our workload.  We survey on the phone or by mail every 
author who has received a response (about 80% of all authors).  Our 
statistics show a 90% satisfaction rate for the IDEAS CENTRAL process and 
a 75% satisfaction rate with the responses.  

I think this is *precisely* the right time for employee involvement. We
have new leadership in the company. We can turn the morale of the company
around *if* the old guard steps out of the way. But you're right, the old
guard are precisely the folks that are not going to be responsive to the
idea.

Concerning the Future Club, I think that's a great idea, but again, you'll
probably have to go it alone.

I thought this article was an interesting reminder of the power that
individuals have.

	"The brown-paper-bag word"
	by Shari Levine
	in the Spring 1993 "Carnegie Mellon" magazine, p56

Followers get a bum rap, says Robert Kelley, author of "The Power of
Followership" (Doubleday, 1992). Most people think of followers as the
antithesis of leaders. The term evokes images of sheep, unthinking
conformists, while "Leaders" connotes trailblazing, achievers, people who
think for themselves.

Yet, according to Kelley, the best followers parlicipate with enthusiasm
and intelligence. They foster cooperative partnerships with their
colleagues. They make contributions to a common cause.

A vital component of followership, stresses Kelley, is developing a
"courageous conscience" or "the ability to judge right from wrong and the
fortitude to take affirmative steps toward what one believes is right."
Kelley identifies East German border guards, Lt. William Calley of the
Mylai massacre of civilians in South Vietnam and Oliver North of the
Iran/Contra scandal as examples of people who committed crimes under the
pretext of following orders. Kelley says effective followers are led by
their conscience, not by unconscionable orders: "Just as followers
voluntarily vest power and authority, they maintain the right to divest
and withdraw support."

An adjunct professor in Carnegie Mellon's business school, Kelley
believes a "cult of leadership" has emerged among executive researchers,
joumalists and consultants who tout the ability to lead as the most
important factor in determining a person or company's potential for
success. He contends that a leader's effect on the success of an
organization is less than 20 percent, leaving the remaining 80 percent in
the hands of common, everyday people followers.

Effective, independent-thinking followers require fewer leaders, Kelley
says, though effective leaders are a plus.

"If the United States is faltering now," writes Kelley, "it is because of
a failure of followership more than a failure of leadership. The fate of
the United States, and particularly U.S. industry, depends on a return to
our roots a belief in the power of the follower, that we are the ones who
ultimately make the difference whether it be at home, at work, in our
communities, or in our nation."

Kelley began his study of followership because of what he saw as society's
overemphasis on leadership. "I have no argument with this enthusiasm,"
he says.  "Leaders matter greatly. But in searching so zealously for
better leaders, we tend to lose sight of the people these leaders will
lead. Without his armies Napoleon was just a man with grandiose
ambitions."

Kelley began his research during the 1980s, the decade of Reaganomics,
Lee Iacocca, corporate takeovers and life on the fast-track. He studied
people behind the scenes the followers. He compiled enough information to
write "In Praise of Followers " which appeared in the Harvard Business
Review. It became one of the top 25 best-selling reprints.

Suddenly, publishers thought a book would be a great idea, says Kelley,
"except that I'd have to sell it in a brown paper bag because no one
would want to be seen buying a book on followership."

In other parts of the world, Kelley points out, followership is seen as
admirable. "For the Japanese and even the Germans, followership provides
as much societal prestige as leadership. Their people derive great
satisfaction from being effective followers. For them, it means teamwork
or pushing responsibility down to the factory floor." Translations of
Kelley's book will appear in Italian, Japanese, Norweigan and Spanish.

The writer says he has been profoundly affected by what he has learned
about followers "Usually research simply confirms an already established
belief. My research on followership has led me to a new place in my life.
I now understand that ordinary people make extraordinary differences, and
those are the stories we need to be telling."

He is now more interested in talking to the unsung heroes and heroines of
a company rather than just the CEOs. His study of followership has even
influenced the way he's raising his children. "We teach children to sit
still and not talk back," he says. "But we don't teach them how to
discriminate between good and bad leaders or how to be respectful but
skeptical of authority. Our children need to learn how to defend themselves
against leaders and peer pressure." Stronger follower skills would equip
them to handle such situations, Kelley contends.

Kelley thinks his followership theories will be tested within the decade.
"It will be interesting to see which model companies will pick," he says.
"Will the traditional, hard- nosed, all-powerful CEO-run company win
out? Or will it be the company grounded in the philosophy of effective
followership that prevails?  With America losing ground to global
competition, it's definitely time to reevaluate the way we're running
companies. I hope `The Power of Followership' will help us do that,
although I suspect it may still be ahead of its time."

Shari Levine is a master's student in professional writing at Carnegie-
Mellon.

re:.17

The points you (or Kelley) make about the difference between "follower"/"leader"
are interesting.  I got the following blurb from a notesfile (I don't know the
author), but it provides a refreshing, contrasting definition of the term
"leader" (as an antonym to "boss").  (These are the kinds of leaders we need :-)
    
    This is seen at a customer's place...
    
               BOSS  OR  LEADER
    
  1  The boss drives people, the leader coaches them.
  2  The boss depends on authority, the leader on good will.
  3  The boss inspires fear, the leader inspires enthusiasm.
  4  The boss says "I", the leader says "WE".
  5  The boss fixes blame for the breakdown, the leader fixes the breakdown.
  6  The boss knows how it is done, the leader shows how.
  7  The boss says "GO", the leader says "LET'S GO".
  8  The boss uses people, the leader develops them.
  9  The boss sees today, the leader also looks at tomorrow.
  10 The boss commands, the leader asks.
  11 The boss never has enough time, the leader makes time for things that
     count.
  12 The boss is concerned with things, the leader is concerned with people
  13 The boss works hard to produce, the leader works hard to help people
     produce.
  14 The boss takes credit, the leader gives it.

    There is another one too.
    
    * A WINNER is always part of the answer;
    
    * A LOSER is always part of the problem.
    
    * A WINNER always has a program;
    
    * A LOSER always has an excuse.
    
    * A WINNER says, "Let me help you;"
    
    * A LOSER says, "That's not my job."
    
    * A WINNER sees an answer for every problem;
    
    * A LOSER sees a problem for every answer.
    
    * A WINNER says, "It may be difficult, but it's possible;"
    
    * A LOSER says, "It may be possible, but it's too difficult."
    
    						Author unknown
    
    

    .0 has a point. In a way NOTES is particularly suited to enable such
    proactive behaviour. Unfortunately many managers view notes as a waste
    of time, or as an irrelevance. Fortunately, many of our products,
    hardware and software, have dedicated NOTES conferences, and in there
    we do, as employees, contribute. We do influence designs, changes,
    improvements etc.
    
    What then is so different about policies, standards and such-like? The
    answer, of course, is very little, with the exception that some
    managers are neither interested in feedback and involment, nor desirous
    of the spotlight of common-sense on their "baby".
    
    With a few outstanding exceptions like Ian Waring, it'll never happen.
    
    Laurie.