Conference 7.286::digital

    I think your sudgestions are excellent!. One thing that I would add is
    to stop focusing on numbers for everthing that moves. Yes this company
    needs numbers to keep track of performance, however there are many
    things that people do at digital that can not and never will be able to
    be measured from a numerical viewpoint. I think that your sudgestion to
    help and encourage employees to become computer literate is excellent!
    Common sense. There are times when I am in the field and customers ask me
    questions about their software. Now I know you can't be expected to know
    every piece of software out on the market, but if it weren't because I
    already used  that software I wouldn't be able to help the customer.
    Probably the best way to improve morale is by example. Digital should
    not say they pay by performance when it is very clear that that is not
    the case. Case in point the average cost of inflaton over that last 15
    years is about 5 percent per year if you have not received a 5 percent
    per year  cost of living increase your buying power has actuall gone
    down. Are you still earning what you earned when you started with
    digital? If Digital actually paid by performance some people would be
    fired, while some other people (worker bees) would actually come out
    ahead. What am I saying? is this lead by example. People will not do
    what you want them to do but wil do what ever you do. Do you remember
    when Lee Ioacoca (hope I spelled his name right) helped to bring
    Chrysler out of the brink of going under? he deffered his salary untill
    the company actually improved. What an example to follow!. Before he
    retired form Chrysler was he over paid?  probably but man what an
    example for his people to follow! why didn't Bob Palmer do the same 
    instead of taking a $100,000 plus a year raise.( While  heads  of
    families were being laidoff). How about to take a $100,000  option to
    purchase Digital stock at todays prices, 3 years from now this way if he
    performs he gets paid by performance. If he doesn't well I guess he'll
    have lost quite a bit of change.
    You see I really belive that when a person has a personal stake in what
    ever they are doing they will generally do everything in there power to
    succeed. The perception that is being voiced at least from my view
    point is that it really doesn't matter how hard you work for the
    company. The bottom line is that you can only go so far up the ladder
    and after you've served your purpose it's bye-bye time!. The bottom
    line as I see it is for Digital is to lead by example if we have the
    fastest chip in the world let everyone know about it. If we want morale
    to improve show it by example because as I said before people will do
    what ever you do and not what you say...
                                      

    re .0...wonderful!

    
    re: .0
    
    	Excellent, especially .0; we need to collectively be able to inhale
    and exhale rather than inhale, take a shot to the sternum and sputter.
    
    - Jim K

        Thank you!
        
        Anker

    re: .0 Good Ideas.

    One other thing I would like to see is the SLT meet with individual
    contributors. A problem I see is the SLT comes up with good
    ideas, but by the time they are passed through the chain of
    command they aren't implemented in the spirit intended. 

    I work in Digital consulting. I would like to see Mr. Brebach meet 
    with selected (randomly) ICs from different groups and locations that
    report up his chain of command. 

    This meeting would not include any managers (to get more open and
    honest discussion, because there are people who fear retaliation). He
    could find out every day issues that affect our business (and his
    bottom line!) without having it float through N layers that are all
    putting their own "spin" on it. 

    I am confident common issues would arise. Next he could meet with the level
    I managers (a small random subset, without their supervisors) and so
    on. Feedback (findings/and action plans) at each stage would be passed 
    back to the whole group.

    This would serve two purposes:

    1. Improve morale. ICs would have a chance to talk to someone who 
       can change things.

    2. Issues that hurt our business would be addressed in a timely manner.


    I want to be positive about this approach. I don't think anyone
    (including our management) comes to work and says "I'm going to do a
    terrible job today" or "How can I mess up Digital today". I think
    everyone is trying to do a good job.  I would bet if I was put in a
    management position, I eventually would end up doing the same things I
    currently take issue with (to keep myself employed). 
    
    I also know the current way things are done did not happen overnight.
    We just need a better way to identify and solve business problems. It's
    a process not a people problem.

    Greg

        Re:<<< Note 2977.5 by ANGLIN::SHARROW "If the man wants to box, I'll out box the man..." >>>

        Greg,
        
        Bill Steul  has  had  meetings  with  employees  in  the Mill.  I
        believe  they  have    been    valuable  even  though  I  haven't
        participated (blush).  Anyway, what I wanted to say is that its a
        great idea and it appears to work!
        
        Anker

    re .6
        Anker
    
       >> Bill Steul  has  had  meetings  with  employees  in  the Mill.  I
       >> believe  they  have    been    valuable  even  though  I  haven't
       >> participated (blush).  Anyway, what I wanted to say is that its a
       >> great idea and it appears to work!
        
    Great!, but what about us out in the field?
    
    One other thing I should have mentioned before. I hope the resolutions
    to the findings would be implemented in a systematic manner. Pick one
    thing and fix it. Then pick another and fix that. Don't try to change
    everything at once.  
    
    
    Greg

    Win Hindle has meetings at various places, including the field,
    from time to time. As I understand it, the purpose of these meetings
    is to hear what's on peoples minds. Feedback from these meetings
    is discussed with the SLT. The summaries of these meetings that
    I've seen lead me to believe that people are not pulling thier
    punches. I think these are a great thing.
    
    These meetings seem to be based around personnel and morale issues.
    Though I'm sure other things come up. I'd like to see various VPs also 
    meet with people on the front lines to discuss technical and marketing 
    concerns.
    
    			Alfred

    
    Re .0:
    
    Great ideas. Good luck pushing them.
    
    I ran the same suggestion on performance/salary reviews through the
    DELTA process before its demise, citing your reason among others.
    After months of silence, I got a reply from someone up high in
    Personnel, which basically said that managers needs the flexibility
    built into the current system to do their jobs (?). The respondent
    declined to engage in a dialogue on the subject.
    
    Hey, maybe things have changed since then...
    

    re .8:

    I've attended a couple of Win's meetings over the last 8 years, last
    one three years ago.  The meetings tended to be large, thirty or forty
    people, and all from the same geographical area.  The setting does not
    lend itself to a high degree of candor or risk taking in the questions
    asked.  Careful forethought and professional phrasing of questions were
    important to addressing key issues or concerns.

    I attended a similar meeting with Gresh Breback a couple of months
    ago.  There were about thirty attendees with managers and for most of
    us, the first time to hear Gresh first hand.  In my opinion, again too
    many people for a large amount of trust and risk taking.  It seems that
    managers have just as much of a need to hear first hand as the
    individual contributors.

    I'd prefer a much smaller group, where it would be easier to quickly
    develop a sense of trust before taking large risks in candor.

    	Rich

re: .0

Good ideas though one of them won't work.  The idea that we can specify and 
change the mgr. to worker ratio is wrong. For example, my organization 
specified a 17:1 ratio, and guess what?  They made it!

Of course the exact same people were doing the exact same work as they had 
always done, but, the number was right. Oh, you mean simply changing a 
title without changing the work isn't what you meant?

We need a system where managers are given an area of responsibility AND 
authority, and a set of goals based on OUTPUT. Then let the manager manage.
If he has a mgr to worker ration of 1:1 that's fine, IF IT DELIVERS THAT 
WHICH NEEDS TO BE DONE for a reasonable cost. Manager to worker ratios are 
an example of how we measure INPUT to the system. Let's concentrate on 
deliverables (output) and let the inputs take care of themselves.


Alan

> 1) Have layoffs occur only one time each year (June or July)
>   and communicate the process and results of the layoff.

  Excellent idea. As .0 says, this gives us 10 months a year of job security
instead of 4.

> 2) Have the annual performance review on the same date as 
>   the salary review.

  Another excellent idea. This thing about getting a review and having a raise
show up in your salary 3-5 months later is not conducive to morale.


> 4) Sell a Digital PC and software to each employee at cost. 
>	Provide training as required.

  The key word is "training". Anyone who wants to (and is near the employee
store) can buy a Digital PC and software at low cost. The problem is how to
get training. I also would add service. I have heard inside and outside this
conference what some people have gone thru to get in-house service on PC's.
  We used to have "learning centers" in all our large plants. They were done
away with as a cost reduction. I would love to be able to walk into a room
on-site and get my hands on a PC *and* have someone there to help me if I get
stuck. The idea of having to learn to use a PC entirely on my own, or use up
my limited training budget on in-house PC courses (assuming I can find one),
doesn't appeal to me.

    	I heard a rumor recently about a new buyout package to be offered
    to *everybody*. This rumor even came with a package formula, and when I
    computed what it would mean for me, it certainly improved MY morale!
    I've even figured out where the money will go. So bring it on!
    	It's relevant to this topic because it would change things
    considerably, if true. A large number of people would take this package
    and run. Considerable regrouping would be required for those remaining.
    I doubt involuntary layoffs would be necessary for a long time. It
    would leave a very different Digital.
    	And if a package sounds too good to be true.....

    
    Read the same rumor in an earlier note and my morale was
    raised significantly!!! Bring on the damn package for everybody..
    and do it now. That would help morale. digital's problems run
    deep, lack of morale is just ONE of them.
    
    BTW - How the hell would they pay for that package? Let's
    see - start at dec right after college (22), work eight years
    (now 30), and then BOMM get 2 years pay!! My morale is getting better
    and better!!!!
    

    Re 13:
    
          The rumors about buy-out packages never cease, and should be put
    in proper perspective:  An across the board buy-out/opt-out package for
    91,000 employeeswould cost BILLIONS!  Does it to appear to ANYONE that 
    the Corp. has that much cash available, or would be wise to borrow that 
    much in this fiscal year?
    
          I've been here since 1967, and, if/when my tap-on-the shoulder
    comes, I, for one, will walk out the door with a SMILE on my face by
    remembering;
    
           1) Digital has provided me with an opportunity to lend a
              personal hand in creating a great Corportation,
    
           2) I've had 27 years without a missed paycheck!
    
           
           3) I could have worked for a Raytheon, Wang, Prime, etc,
              but I've NEVER been sorry that I chose Digital!
    
    Much of the talk in this forum seems to hint that the Corp. "OWES-Me
    something"........BULL!
    
       Remember the words "Ask not what my country can do for me...ask
    what I can do for my country"<--- It applies to Digital, today!
    
    Enough of my soap-boxing,
    
Dick Cyganm, in Maynard 
    
    

    re .0
    I hate to go against the tide here since everyone seems to think the
    basenote is great.I do too but would argue that maybe we are being a
    little simplistic.If you don't have a PC and you haven't trained
    yourself already,then you are clearly not interested.Salary reviews?Yes
    it seems a good idea to do them at a logical time.Job security of 10
    months instead of 4-definitely a good idea.
    Don't you think morale would improve with a bit of decent management
    from above which filtered down to direct action?Don't you think it odd
    that the same faces in middle management are still around and still
    manage to block or translate any decent visionary stuff?A kid of three
    could work out that those who caused the problem are unlikely to
    resolve it.
    Row harder?Yes we all do and all my colleagues will row harder still if
    we see that the people telling us where to row to are not the only ones
    with life jackets..
    Management starts with leading by example based on real experience and
    this is sadly lacking.Morale starts with good management regardless of
    the economic state of the company or the industry.

    huh? .14
    
    Look where that got the author of "Ask not what my country can...?"
    - with half his brain on the pavement!
    
    I still prefre to read it -> THEY OWE ME!
    
    though i got to agree - where's the $$$$ going to come from?

>   Look where that got the author of "Ask not what my country can...?"
>   - with half his brain on the pavement!

  Huh? is right!!

  There is absolutely no connection between the events in the two lines of
  text at the top of this window.

    Much of the basenote is excellent.  The salary/performance review is
    not a big item in my book, and I think there is a better way.  But, the
    rest is very good.  I'd like to suggest something additional.
    
    Successful human interaction is based on respect.  We need to respect
    our managers and co-workers and they us.  Next, there must be trust. 
    And, finally there must be confidence.  Certainly, if we do not have
    respect, trust and confidence in our SLT we are going to have a problem
    and obviously the reverse is true.  For the past two years, the only
    thing coming in my direction have been edicts that seem to clearly
    state that I am not respected, trusted nor is there confidence in my
    ability to perform.  Examples of this, are the cost constraints such as
    limits on meal amounts, threats that say if I take the higher cost
    transportation I may not be reimbursed, and room rates for each city,
    etc.  Training has emphasized what I must do, as oppossed to what is
    the goal of this campaign, products, effort and let me apply the
    finishing touches for my customer.  It has been even more difficult for
    my manager as he has everything micro-managed for him, he has become a
    conduit for SLT direction and not an effective manager.
    
    To improve morale I suggest that we reinstitute management is this
    company.  When a budget is approved, the manager has the right to spend
    as he sees fit to reach his goal.  If he does not make the goal, he
    must be formally reprimanded and if it continues, he must be replaced. 
    Make him a real manager and respect and trust his decisions and have
    the confidence in him to reach the goal.  Demand of him that he do the
    same for me.  I know that this will present problems for some, because
    we don't have 100% good managers, but we must weed out those not fit to
    lead and replace them.
    
    I think it is imperative that the SLT display re-newed confidence in
    us, respect for us and trust that we will do what is right for this
    company.  The only logical outcome of this will be a successful
    company.

re: .14

IMHO - This adage works for governments and some other public entities, but
I disagree in applying it to a BUSINESS.  One's relationship with an employer
is a business relationship, with business transactions, and each party gets
something from it.  Anyone who just thinks about what they can give in this
relationship and not what they are getting in return is asking to be taken
to the cleaners, career and employment-wise.

I think a lot of what has contributed to poor morale is the fact that for those
with poor morale, they feel the exchange has become unbalanced.  They have
given more than they have received.  The suggestions in .0 are all very good.
I would like to add another.  Make salary increases timely and tied immediately
to the results of the last performance review.  I know this is *policy*, but
in actual practice my experience has been that your increase is based on the
salary plan, which was derived from your *last* review, which may be months
or years old depending on the cycles.  Making a salary increase *in actual
practice* reflect the work you have just completed would help a lot.

        .14 and .21 plus all the other notes.
        
        I agree with .12 that Digital has given me a lot.    I  have been
        given  all the opportunities I asked for, I receive a good salary
        and I absolutely love the people.
        
        The  formal  relationship between us and Digital  IS  a  business
        relationship.  If you don't like the deal  you  can get out of it
        with  next  to  no  notice.  If you feel  no  obligation  to  the
        company, other employees, the customers, our partners etc., do us
        all a favor and resign.  There are lots of other jobs around.
        
        Anker

re: .22

	In general I agree with you. However, in the last 5 years it has
	become increasingly difficult to justify the environment.
	I must say that I no longer respect, never mind love, most of the
	people I come in contact with. 

	I have seen my work load increase dramatically with no comensurate
	increase in recognition never mind pay. While at the same time
	I see an increase in the proportion of "ex-managers" doing the 
	same old valueless paper pushing, "facilitiating", "expectation
	managing", and "direction setting"  (go there, no there), with
	not an iota of leadership among them.

	I long for the days when there were a few managers who would 
	set a direction and then LEAD THE WAY, selling the program and
	banging the drum to motivate people and accomplish real things. 

	Multi-million dollar programs with no progam plans after 9-months,
	with no meetings of all the project leaders, with 2 people in 
	every org. box...It's tough to suck it up and work for good old
	DEC when it is obvious that the people with the power don't 
	have a clue as to what's wrong, and keep rewarding the same old
	screw ups and no-ops that got us into this mess.

	The business deal is not all there is. It is not an impersonal
	arrangement because the employee is committing a large part of 
	what makes one an individual; intelligence, creativity, emotional
	energy, to doing a good job.  When this is not recognized, and
	when people who do NOT make the same sort of committment are treated
	the same as those who are, it becomes increasingly easy to 
	approach work as a purely business deal. Give only what you need to,
	take as much as you can get; it's what's expected and what's
	rewarded.

Since I was the originator of this note, I would like to say that I have
appreciated all of the comments. Although I listed five suggestions, the
first one regarding layoffs is by far the most important. We need some
stability in our professional careers. It should not be very difficult
to schedule layoffs, if required, on an annual basis. I just hope that
someone from senior management that can make this happen, sees the
importance of morale and moves forward with similar changes. I have
always appreciated the opportunity to work for Digital. I do believe
that the five suggestions would go a long way to improving the Digital
environment. 

Thanks again for your comments,
You interest shows the importance of these suggestions,

Craig

I like your suggestions.  I also realize the first one regarding
layoffs is the hardest.  Perhaps one way to improve moral is to see
reality more clearly.  To speak the truth.

At our peak we had about 131,000 employees world wide.
We're at about 91,000 today.  The most recent corporate goal
is to get down to 85,000 by the end of June, but this is probably
still more than we can sustain.

Why?  Because we don't know how to be $13 Billion company any more.

Our largest business unit is declining at around 30% per quarter
and losing $.5 Billion per year.  This includes our VAX business
with many of our best customers.  The market has changed much
faster than we have.  We can't quit, we have to support our VAX
customers, but we also can't afford two more years to recover,
there will be nothing left.

Nobody likes down sizing each quarter, but what are the alternatives?

Each quarter we have the opportunity to save thousands of jobs.
How can we make our contributions count?

In my better moments, I think it's more powerful to
work for what we want than resist what we don't want.

- Peter

Heard a rumor to go down to 50,000 - never mind 85,000.

       <<< Note 2977.25 by HANNAH::SICHEL "All things are connected." >>>
                           -< Working to save jobs >-

I like your suggestions.  I also realize the first one regarding
layoffs is the hardest.  Perhaps one way to improve moral is to see
reality more clearly.  To speak the truth.

At our peak we had about 131,000 employees world wide.
We're at about 91,000 today.  The most recent corporate goal
is to get down to 85,000 by the end of June, but this is probably
still more than we can sustain.

Why?  Because we don't know how to be $13 Billion company any more.

Our largest business unit is declining at around 30% per quarter
and losing $.5 Billion per year.  This includes our VAX business
with many of our best customers.  The market has changed much
faster than we have.  We can't quit, we have to support our VAX
customers, but we also can't afford two more years to recover,
there will be nothing left.

Nobody likes down sizing each quarter, but what are the alternatives?

Each quarter we have the opportunity to save thousands of jobs.
How can we make our contributions count?

In my better moments, I think it's more powerful to
work for what we want than resist what we don't want.

- Peter

    re: .25
    
    Regarding layoffs.  I can't speak from facts, only speculation, so if
    someone has the facts to back me up or refute my statements, please
    provide them.  I believe the current layoff of the month stuff is about
    the lamest excuse for management I've ever seen.  Are our revenue and
    expense numbers varying so greatly that we can't predict with some
    level of accuracy how we're going to do more than a couple of weeks in
    the future?  I believe the current trends in declining revenue are been
    relatively smooth for some time now and should be relatively easy to
    predict.
    
    If we can predict revenue decline, then we *ought* to be able to
    predict human resource requirements!  I believe the real problem stems
    from people playing number games and not being held accountable for
    their stupidity.  Groups hold back information in order to protect
    themselves, or make unrealistic projections to justify their staffing
    levels.  If someone can't get it right after a few quarters, what makes
    anyone think they're going to get it right in the future?  Hold them
    accountable and remove (fire?) them if they can't get it right.
    
    I think it's really part of a much larger problem of accountability
    than it is predictability, but that is probably the subject of another
    flame fest.
    
    -tl

    re -.1  - good points.
    
    1 - some areas are terribly understaffed and overworked, facilities 
    	aren't available to meet commitments, etc.
    
    2 - other areas that have had recent layoffs now have reqs open.
    
    I can't but wonder if most layoffs are knee-jerk reactions to past
    events, not a response to current conditions, projected needs, or
    stated direction.  This would mean that management is reacting to
    prepared reports that may be erroneous, out-dated, or out of touch.

    re -1
    Of COURSE many of the layoffs are "knee-jerk" reactions.  
    
    They are largely driven, as another noter has noted, by the last
    quarter's revenue/margins accomplishments on a business by business
    basis.  Rather than make realistic plans, which are achievable over a
    period of time, our management tends to try to make overly optimistic
    projections (probably to assuage some higher level manager's
    expectations to make HIS/HER budgets) and when unable to make the marks
    is forced to "fudge" the bottom line by cutting costs.  And, in the
    short term (that is, to save one's neck TODAY) MANY worker-bees (and an
    occasional lower echelon manager) is axed to lower the expense ledger
    entry.  
    
    First they get rid of "unneeded capital equipment" to amortize...
    translates into taking your tools away from you.  Then they reduce
    costs further by "consolidating" everything from facilities (like
    moving out of DEC owned facilities into "free" commercial space),
    shuffling employees around from one job to another, modifying scheduled
    events to fit the immediate NOW... and turning managers into
    baby-sitters with no authority and reduced responsibilities, while
    assigning tasks that WERE being performed by the now TFSO'd to those
    who either don't have the cycles to do them, or the knowledge to do
    them well. 
    
    It's all in the game of immediacy, and expediency.  
    
    

    >>> ... our management tends to try to make overly optimistic
    >>> projections (probably to assuage some higher level manager's
    >>> expectations to make HIS/HER budgets) ... 

        Rather than assume the more malevolent and self-seeking 
        interpretion, I'd like to believe that the majority of our 
        managers are doing the best that they can ... or, at least, 
        believe that they are.  Maybe they just don't know how to make 
        more realistic estimates.  Maybe they're just more hopeful than 
        is appropriate.  Even ordinary, run-of-the-mill optimism seems to 
        have been excessive after a few minor disasters have accumulated.

        The question DOES come up about why they were made managers in 
        the first place ... or, why they don't learn.  The "Peter 
        Principle" probably explains that ... and it's hard to beat.  
        About seven years ago, I was "promoted to my level of 
        incompetence."  I was managing small projects; was fairly
        consistent about being overly optimistic ... and suffered no end 
        of self-recrimination about it.

        I finally had the sense to change jobs within my organization.  
        It was terrifying at the time, but it worked.  I'm still lousy at
        scoping projects and setting deadlines, but system management is
        more process than product driven.  The duties of my current
        position can be thought of as either one continuous deadline or 
        none at all.  Either way, I can make a contribution and succeed 
        where I was failing before.

        Maybe some of our present managers need to gain some estimation 
        skills and tools ... or, find out where their real talents match 
        up with the company's needs.

    Terry

    .28:
    
�    2 - other areas that have had recent layoffs now have reqs open.
    
    One side-effect of laying people off is that some of their surviving
    collegues will start to look for new jobs either within or without the
    company.  This should hardly come as a surprise:  most people would
    rather jump than be pushed.
    
    I don't know how one can predict this effect with anything remotely
    resembling accuracy, though, because the people looking can be expected
    to play things close to their chest until they jump (or are pushed).
    
    Dick

Layoffs are not a response to losses on a business unit basis. Components and
Perhipherals has been consistently profitable, and has been meeting or exceeding
goals, yet we had a layoff last week. This was forced on us despite meeting
profit goals. This was the answer Larry Cabrinetty gave at an employee meeting
last week. 

    
    Hmmm, do you suppose that maybe somebody was getting worried that
    Components and Peripherals might be getting successful, and so
    decided to...  Nah, that would never happen at Digital.
    
    Sign me,
    Suspicious :-)                                         

re .32

I have seen the same effect in field service... uh, I mean Customer
services, uh, I mean MCS. I've heard for years that service income was
'keeping things afloat' but yet they still have been choping the 'worker
bee' people... sometimes it seems like holes being drilled in the bottom
of the boat to let the water out.

Lee

I watched a really interesting 'round table' type discussion on ch 11
(NH PBS station) last night dealing with corporate restructuring/layoff/etc.
( Sorry, I forget the name of the show.) Anyway the participates were venture
capitolists, CEOs (former & current), labor, investors, laywers, mayors,
business journalists and govt labor types. The forum revolved around a
hypothetical company that was in trouble (like DEC). The blame was dumped on
the current CEO who the panel thought should get the boot (like DEC). Once the
new CEO was installed the layoffs/palnt closings began (just like DEC). What
was **really** interesting was all of the business types on the panel admitted
the board had been asleep at the wheel and should have done something about the
former CEO sooner. So, the principle 'ball droppers' in this case, former 
CEO and board of directors, incurred almost none of the pain for poor
management. The CEO was let go with a large severance package (everybody
admitted thats what happens in real life) and the board promised to stay awake
and make sure the new CEO performed. Yet the employees were given a moderate
severance and told by the board and new CEO how sorry they were to lose
employees. Taken as a whole the discussion spoke to me of
how incredibly out of touch upper management is; they bear almost no burden for
running a business poorly. Another interesting aspect was that each group
seemed to be selling something. The labor guy was saying how well protected
the employee was even in the event of losing his job (eh?). The CEOs all tryed
to make themselves look clean by being sorry for those layed off but in the
same breath talked about lots of complicated financial stuff (ie money was
worth more than a loyal employee). The govt labor guy was selling the concept
of how much more involved the govt should be to protect communties from the
horrible business types. The list goes on. It speaks volumes of how horribly
business is conducted in this country. The bottom line was money has the
greatest worth and nothing else counts. As an after thought they rambled about
how important community was and worker loyalty but I think none of them believed
it. I understand alot better the mindset running this company and why things
that seemingly make no sense occur.

    re. .30
    
    >>> I'd like to believe that the majority of our
    >>> managers are doing the best that they can ... or, at least,
    >>> believe that they are. Maybe they just don't know how to make
    >>> more realistic estimates. Maybe they're just more hopeful than
    >>> is appropriate.
    
    If a person can not make a realistic estimate, let others who know
    how to do the work.
    
    The following is a true story:
    
    	A specialist'd worked on the customer site for 11 months with average
    100+% billable (~$115/hr).  After this person finished the asssignment and
    went back to the office, the L1 manager refused to give this person a raise
    because the forcast was screwed up.  This specialist did not receive a good
    evaluation because the L1 manager was not satisfied that the customer did 
    not continue to use this specialist.                 

RE: .35

>> how incredibly out of touch upper management is; they bear almost 
>> no burden for running a business poorly. 

 and

>> I understand alot better the mindset running this company and why things
>> that seemingly make no sense occur.

 It is also fits the following observation:

 Once an organization gets big I follow the following to predict what 
it is going to do next:

"Assume that the board of directors, and all others high up in the organization
all work for the competition."

This rule doesn't seem to work for small companies.

 dave

Re: .32 and .33

I was at the meeting too (which is where I got the figures in .25).
What Bob Palmer said is "I expect you to contribute, nobody is exempt."
The reductions C&P had to make were modest compared to some others
because the group is profitable.  We may be efficient, but we can still
do better.

It would have been much harder for Bob Palmer to get cooperation
if some groups were exempt.  We're all responsible and we all
have to share some of the burden.

Try to imagine how the SLT and other managers must feel.
It's not working, and they know it.

I think we need more understanding and more cooperation.

- Peter

    
    I would argue that you reward a group that is making its
    numbers. What better message to send than to say, XYZ
    group is not participating because they made their goals.
    
    Glenn

    .38
    
    I don't know what company you work for, but in the Digital I work for I
    have seen TFSO used to get back at enemies, consolidate a power base,
    and get rid of the (internal) competition.  I have rarely seen it used
    to make us a more competitive (externally) and efficient company.
    
    I agree with .37, those groups within the company that are making their
    numbers and contributing to the success of the company, should not have
    to downsize.  They should be rewarded for their success, not thrown in
    the TFSO pool with everyone else.
    
    Still suspicious after all these years,
    Al
     

    
    
    		"Those who don't learn from the past experiences will
    		 be forced to relive them, again, again, and again
    		 untill the lesson is learned"
    
    						Animal Farm
    						George Orwell
    

    
    		"Those who don't learn from the past experiences will
    		 be forced to relive them, again, again, and again
    		 untill the lesson is learned"
    
    						Animal Farm
    						George Orwell
    
    Was that animal a duck-billed platitude?
    
    

    
    Nope. It was Shirley McLaine.