Conference 7.286::digital

    Don't forget the airfares, hotels, dinners etc...
    
    Laurie.

After working in other companies, I have found it very bizarre the way
organizations within Digital are known by the person in charge rather than 
the actual function.  It is amazing how often I have heard things like:
I work for Dave Johnson's group and he is within Mary Peterson's organization.

It just seems that personalities are more important than the function itself.
I'd prefer to keep personalities out of it and just say that the A function 
reports to the VP of B.   This focus on personalities seems to be consistent 
with the complaint heard that its not what you know its who you know.

Oh well,

Steve Farlow

But the organization names change more frequently than
the people names, so it's easier to use the people's name.

dave (head of the dave porter organisation)

    
    Or the other flavor of that which is even more insidious:  "Oh
    that's handled in John Doe's world."  Think about it.
    
    Steve
    

    Re: .2 by 17185::DSCGLF::FARLOW:
    
    >...the complaint heard that its not what you know its who you know.
    
    But that IS reality.  Relating to personal names rather than abstract
    organizational group names is human and extends well beyond Digital.  

	
	Re: Id'ing with a name/leader rather than an org.

	Interesting point.  I think there is a morale factor in alligning
	one's self with a leader/name rather than an organization.  In the
	War Between the States (American Civil War) there was a curious
	difference between the Southern soldiers and the Northern soldiers
	when asked their respective position within the overall Army structure.

	The Northern soldier would invariably state something like;

		I am private Randolf Carter,  Company B,  4th Vermont Volunteers,
		6th Corps,  Army of the Potomac.
	
	while the Southern soldier would answer upon these lines;

		Private Lamar Smith,  "Stonewall Brigade",  Jackson's Corps,
		Lee's Army of Northern Virgina.
	
	Various reasons have been brought forth to explain this difference but
	since the Southern Armies were mostly volunteer rather than conscripts
	I believe they wanted to 'belong' and to feel they had chosen their 
	leadership whereas the Northern soldier would rather get 'lost' in the
	numbers game and it really didn't matter who lead them.

	Regards,

	Chuck

The Organization Man of the sixties has evolved into the RE-organization
Man in the nineties; adept at liquidation, consolidation, work-force
reduction, and enterprise-wide down-sizing.

	1950s	the Grey Flannel Suit Man
	1960s	the Organization Man
	1970s	the Conglomeration Man
	1980s	the Merger Man
	1990s	the Re-Organization Man

Over the last forty years the role of the corporate executive has changed
to accommodate the emerging global marketplace.  The soul of that same
executive is still owned by the corporate structure.  When that corporate 
structure is weakened by reorganization or financial problems, then the
individual executive's personality can supplant the corporate one, and
that individual emerges as the "key man."

The tendancy to identify with a personality may be more an attempt to
attach to some perceived stability or permanence not found in the tenuous
structure of many of our current beleagured corporations.

    ... the envelope please ...
    
    ... as personnel are laid off from one place, and part-timers and
    contractors begin to be the majority of Corporate America, and loyalty
    becomes a vague memory:
    
    Mid-1990s	the Organ(ization) Transplant Man