Conference 7.286::digital

    >...who wanted to attend was allowed to.
    
    Or even heard of it.

    I understand that in at least one group, the manager hand-picked the
    people who could attend:-(
    
    Bob

    I'm an MRO3 'inmate'...  and here's how it went, majour manager types
    were told how many 'slots' they were alloted, in turn, they divvied up
    those slots amongst their direct reports, who in turn took their slots,
    and selected people from their groups to go.  USLS is a majour part of
    MRO3, and my parent organization, and my boss got 3 slots for a group
    of about 20, and he selected the 3 people to attend.  I *believe* that
    managers were supposed to select people with an eye to "diversity"...
    the reality would appear to be different, but then, if you get few
    slots, how do you please everyone?  Obviously, lots of room here for
    politics...
    
    The whole thing was obviously VERY carefully orchestrated, and the
    attendees carefully chosen...  there were lots of PC questions asked as
    to company direction, strategy, etc., but virtually none of the really
    hard, in-your-face types of questions we all would really like to ask.
    
    They arranged one half of the cafe for this little cozy shindig, and that
    doesn't seat a whole heckuvalot of people...  and, bless 'em, they
    didn't put the tables and chairs back before lunch, you should have
    seen the mel�e...  we were sitting in each other's laps to eat lunch...
    
    It was noted that BP looked very fit, tan and relaxed, in contrast to
    the pasty-white and frazzled looking troops...  that he spoke well,
    with authority, crisply, seemed very much in command of things, and at
    ease...
    
    FWIW...
    
    /m
    
    

OK. Who's going to be the first person to step forward, and, with a straight
face and a sincere attitude, tell us what the value and benefits of this
particular little event were?

-Jack

    Perhaps to make Bob feel that the employees feel good about the job
    he's doing?  (if there really were no 'hard' questions...)

re:     <<< Note 3105.5 by ODIXIE::SILVERS "dig-it-all, we rent backhoes." >>>


Oh, c'mon - you didn't _really_ have a straight face when you typed that, did
you? 200 person-hours of DIGITAL time (minimum) to make Bob feel good? Didn't
his raise do that? (It probably would have made more than 200 people feel good
if it had been divvied up! :^)

-Jack

    ;-)# --- look like a straight face to you??? (and yup, I'd rather have
    divvied up the bucks!)  Actually, hearing about Bob's  'talks' is
    reminiscent of hearing about Bill Clinton's carefully orchestrated
    'town meetings'.... both seem to be about as productive... - Ds.

re: last few


 Only Bob doesn't know that the meetings are "fixed".

    .3�    attendees carefully chosen...  there were lots of PC questions asked as
    
    .3�    managers were supposed to select people with an eye to "diversity"...
    
    Great, a VD (Valuing Differences) seminar! Just what we need to get us
    back on track!
    
    Ken

    I suspect that the meetings are for external consumption. Perhaps the
    Board of Directors, perhaps the media. Bob can point to the meetings
    and say they "see, I'm meeting face to face and no one seems all
    that upset." It gives the appearance of real communication without
    facing hard questions from upset employees.

    What I'd like is for Bob to handle a few exit interviews.
    
    		Alfred

I guess that's why Bob doesn't know that any morale problems exist, and why
he expects everyone is happy with their renumeration.

But, wait a minute, Alfred - he musta done Lucente's exit interview, right?

-Jack

    
    >But, wait a minute, Alfred - he musta done Lucente's exit interview, right?

    Not necessarily. Besides, even if he did, people have this amazing
    capacity to believe what they want even if what they see and hear
    contradicts there wishes.

    			Alfred

	It amazes me how people will carp about *anything* that happens in
	this company. People complain about upper management not being aware
	of problems and issues. People complain when upper management
	actually goes and TALKS to front-line employees, because it didn't
	turn into a live equivalent of the compalining and moaning that goes
	on in this notesfile.

	Having attended a sessoin with Bob Palmer a month or so back, I can
	assure you that he is *VERY* aware of the problems and issues facing
	this company, from the grand scale to the individual. He impressed
	me as having a strong grasp of what's happening and what we need to
	do.

	As to the value of this type of session, I personally see it as
	incredibly useful. It gives Palmer feedback from employees, it gives
	employees a better feel for what's going on at the top, and
	generally serves as a useful communication mechanism. 

	Of course there will always be those people who won't be happy until
	Palmer personally tells them why they didn't get a raise last year,
	or gives us a firm, detailed accounting of everything that this
	company does. But for those who can actually see the big picture,
	who realize that things like strategy and direction are important --
	VERY IMPORTANT -- these sessions can prove incredibly valuable.

	Roy

    
>	this company, from the grand scale to the individual. He impressed
>	me as having a strong grasp of what's happening and what we need to
>	do.
    
    You could be right. So who overruled him and ordered the layoffs?
    They're clearly not the right thing to do at this time.
    
    			Alfred

>    You could be right. So who overruled him and ordered the layoffs?
>    They're clearly not the right thing to do at this time.

What makes this so clear to you?

Nobody likes layoffs, but are they clearly not the right thing for the
survival of the company?  Why?

re: .13, Roy Swonger

If you read, and believe, the machinations described in .3 of this topic,
can you truly feel that there was a genuine intention to communicate in
this meeting, aside from any ulterior motives? I'm just wondering.

-Jack

    First of all this was the first breakfast with an enlarged population
    to pick from.  When these breakfasts started only very high level IC's
    wee invited.  At this one people from all levels were invited.  I can
    say for my group that no attenpt was made to hand pick politically
    correct people to attend.  The people were free to ask any question
    they wanted, no pressure to ask only friendly questions.  After years
    of no attenpts by the CEO to talk and listen to employees I find this a
    positive step in the right direction.
    
    
     

>Nobody likes layoffs, but are they clearly not the right thing for the
>survival of the company?  Why?
    
    Because the processes we have require the number of people we have.
    Unless you fix the process *first* cutting people only makes things
    worse.
    
    		Alfred

re Note 3105.18 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> >Nobody likes layoffs, but are they clearly not the right thing for the
> >survival of the company?  Why?
>     
>     Because the processes we have require the number of people we have.
>     Unless you fix the process *first* cutting people only makes things
>     worse.
  
        You mean it's kind of like putting a trade embargo on some
        petty dictatorship and assuming that processes will become
        more humane as a result? :-{

        Bob

    
    .13
    	    
            ....or gives us a firm, detailed accounting of everything 
    	    that this company does. But for those who can actually see the big
    	    picture, who realize that things like strategy and direction are
    	    important --...
    
    In a nutshell is this not what Mr. Palmer is paid $900K a year to do?
    Of course he should see the "big picture" and setting a direction and
    creating a corresponding strategy to follow that direction are the 
    cornerstones of the big picture.  But as the Employee Survey has shown
    (my group was the pilot for it and our results have been discussed 
    with us already) the big picture is very foggy and Senior Leadership
    is not seen as the force that will dispell that fog.  In fact SL was
    felt not to be able to stay any course long enough to see if any of 
    the directions/strategies they have choosen so far would work. 
    
    Second, what is so wrong about Mr. Palmer being expected to give a firm
    (as in knowledgable), detailed (as in comprehensive) accounting of 
    everything this company does?  Is that not the job of a chief executive
    officer?  Having a forest is good, but you curse the trees!  The big
    picture and the ability to understand the pieces that comprise it are
    inseparable.  Mr. Palmer has put in place a cadre of VPs who certainly
    can provide him with enough accurate information about the "pieces",
    so that he can compile a accurate big picture.  Just as important as
    any VP in providing accurate information is an unfettered employee 
    population who feel comfortable asking the "hard" questions and passing
    on the "hard" information to complete an accurate big picture for 
    Mr. Palmer to deal with.  Why were the questions so PC; I don't know
    for sure but I'll bet fear played a part.  In his last DVN even
    Mr. Palmer commented on the lack of "hard" questions and made an 
    attempt to provide some of his own.  He could very well be attempting
    an honest effort to reach out to the employees and in that case the
    orchestration this meeting seems to have deteriorated into does him an
    injustice.  
    
    However, I certainly understand the fear of speaking out and even 
    when someone is not afraid and does speak out there is the sense 
    of fruitlessness that can wear you down....I remember Dick Joseph!
    
    Sorry...I cerainly didn't intend to go on and I didn't intend to 
    dismiss the value of your responese; I see your point but it is 
    one among many....most valid, all from people who care.
    
    
     
     
    
            
    
    

    
    Re; previous couple
    
    I don't think, given the $2M dollar a day bleeding, we have
    time to fix the processes any more. I think the only thing
    Palmer can do now is what he essentially proposes: bust
    it up into some loose confederation of smaller, more autonomous 
    units -- inclusive of selling some, spinning some off, and turning
    some into divisions.  Then at least, those smaller units
    will be free of the process mess.  The managers in those
    autonomous units will be free to get things done like
    their smaller, more nimble competitors.
    
    Glenn
                                                 

    .17 - Obviously, things certainly can be different from group to group,
    so I don't disagree in principle, but a nagging sense of a carefully
    orchestrated event was left, none-the-less.
    
    I applaud BP for making an effort to stay in contact with the troops, I
    deplore the carefully orchestrated mechanisms around those efforts... 
    I also contend that most people are so afraid of political fall-out if
    they ask the really hard questions, i.e., wind up on someone's TFSO
    list, of negative visibility, etc., that it is virtually impossible in
    such highly visible public events, for people to truly share their
    thoughts.  I know of lots of managers who are so desperately trying to
    save their empires, whether or not there may be altruistic reasons for
    doing so, that they make sure that there are no cracks in the facade of
    any sort, i.e., you don't send employees to such events who might cause
    embarassment.  That's the reality, like it or not.
    
    If BP REALLY wants to know what's happening, let him read ::Digital, or
    even, shudder, ::Soapbox, or ::DCU...  let him walk through the halls,
    quietly and unobstrusively, and just listen with open mind and heart. 
    Let him do the exit interviews.  I don't have alot of answers, I only
    know that there is no _true_ two-way communcation taking place, IMHO.
    
    FWIW...  sigh...

>        <<< Note 3105.12 by CVG::THOMPSON "An AlphaGeneration Noter" >>>

    
>    >But, wait a minute, Alfred - he musta done Lucente's exit interview, right?

>    Not necessarily. Besides, even if he did, people have this amazing
>    capacity to believe what they want even if what they see and hear
>    contradicts there wishes.

>    			Alfred

    
    I thought the problem of 'belief overrides reality' was a problem
    unique to certain managers in Subsystems. 
    
    Seeing that it may go even higher gives me _absolutely_ no hope
    of seeing this company ever succeed again.
    
    
    Publius
    

    theres always someone in the way that stops you from communicating to
    the top and it is all controlled by fear of losing your job especially
    in these times...unless the prideful become humble, nothing will
    change!! A lot of employees will do anything to get ahead and once they
    are at a top level position of course the pressure that they have turns
    into a fight for your job attitude. When your fighting to stay alive at
    your job you'll almost do anything (including taking credits from other
    employees) to impress your superiors thus the frustration continues..
    And that attitude that they have effects the groups they're in charge
    of. There afraid to speak up because of the control there under...
    
    
               stig

    
    Let's get real!  In most corporations when the CEO sits down with rank
    and file, that's long for IC's, the questions are polite and the
    feedback is tempered.  This is called human nature.
    
    Palmer impresses me as an excellent listener.  A skill most of us could
    probably stand more command over.  I believe Palmer's interface within
    the organization, as staged as it may seem, is giving him the real
    outlook.
    
    It is my personal belief that anyone who wanted to discuss the "tough"
    questions with Palmer well could have if they had command of the facts
    and were in fact ready to debate their belief with him as necessary.  
    However, most of the time we just want to bitch and, if that is the
    case, better then that we remain polite because CEO's don't engage in
    royal bitch sessions.
    
    My 2-cents!   

    re .25
    
    I agree.  I did see Russ Gullotti answer several tough questions during
    a session about two or three months ago, by the way.  Although you may
    not agree with his answers, or the reasoning behind the strategies (of
    hiring so many VP's for example, while letting go front line workers),
    he met the questions head on and had detailed answers...and if he
    didn't agree with the premis of the question, he said so...he didn't
    dance around the question.
    
    Russ isn't BP, but I didn't see BP's talk.  I just wanted to make the
    point that from what I've seen the senior leaders of the company have
    tried, and continue to try to communicate directly and not avoid
    difficult questions...but you have to ask the question to *them*, not
    to the Digital NOTES file.
    
    ...and I don't agree that SLT should read this file and take it as a
    barometer.  This is a place where much venting is done and alot of it
    is not productive to the general population (although it might be
    productive for the individual doing the venting).
    
    If you have serious questions or suggestions regarding the direction of
    the company, this can be posed directly to an SLT member.  I'm sure
    some people here have done that already.
    
    	Jim

>             <<< Note 3105.21 by BOOKS::HAMILTON "Change sucks." >>>
>                        -< not time for process fixes. >-
>    
>    I don't think, given the $2M dollar a day bleeding, we have
>    time to fix the processes any more. I think the only thing
>    Palmer can do now is what he essentially proposes: bust
>    it up into some loose confederation of smaller, more autonomous 
>    units -- inclusive of selling some, spinning some off, and turning
>    some into divisions.  Then at least, those smaller units
>    will be free of the process mess.  The managers in those
>    autonomous units will be free to get things done like
>    their smaller, more nimble competitors.

This is a seriously naive point of view.
"Processes" are the way one runs one's business.
The most obvious is division of labor, or allocation of responsibility, 
if you prefer. Person #1 buys the parts, person #2 puts them together,
person #3 puts them in a box, person #4 writes the address on it and takes 
it to the post office, person #5 cashes the check when the customer pays, etc.

Okay, some of our processes had become bloated and inefficient during 
the '80s, but even a redundant element in a process is likely performed
by someone whose remaining responsibilities are still relevant.
If five people are each 80% effective, you can't afford to lay one off until
you know how to reallocate his relevant 80% to the other four (and drop their
irrelevant 20% shares each).
Similarly, in the example above, if you outsource #4's job by contracting
with the post office to pick up the package, you have to know who's now
going to write the address on it when #4 leaves.

Spinning off businesses is the same idea, but worse.
How can you blindly form a subsidiary with no legal, financial, purchasing,
or sales staff?  You need to plan processes for the new business
to work independently BEFORE you cast them adrift, or they'll  sink of their
own weight right away.

- tom]

    I was at the session a month ago where Mr. Palmer came and talked to an
    engineering group here at ZK.   I was pretty impressed with his ability
    to listen, to quickly understand the questioner's point, and to answer
    honestly, with very little hedging (when he couldn't answer a question,
    or didn't have information, he said so) and without getting offended.
    He never appeared to take a question as implicit criticism, and when
    some questions were explicitly critical, he didn't react defensively. 
    He explained his position clearly.  There was plenty of room to
    disagree with his decisions and argue with his interpretations, but I
    didn't think there was any grounds for saying he didn't understand the
    business situation or the personal situation he was putting everybody
    in the company in.  
    
    --bonnie

    .28  I heard the same, that BP really did listen, and answered
    questions put to him crisply and carefully.
    Again, my point is NOT that BP may not be communicating, but that I
    feel that these occasions are too staged, too public to be of much
    value in terms of soliciting REAL feedback, getting the hard questions,
    getting the issues that are truly foremost in folks' minds addressed. 
    I am not sure what forum could do that, I don't have any answers left,
    either.
    I also, however, heard alot of "he just doesn't have a clue", and he
    STILL defends his pay rise.  There is a vast world of difference
    between "communicating" and "rubbing salt into our wounds", to quote an
    (anonymous) friend of mine in this company.
    
    Sigh

    
    re: .27
    
    Sigh. I understand that you need processes and procedures
    to run a business. I also understand that even small businesses
    need *some* processes to run. What I was suggesting (in the subtext,
    if not directly) is that this company is choking on its bloated,
    overstaffed, anal-retentive insistence on following rules/procedures
    blindly as we spin into oblivion.
    
    Just ask yourself: if we were a startup, or a small growing
    business, would you be forming task forces, committees, and
    working groups at even the adjusted rate that we do? No, you'd
    be concentrating ON GETTING PRODUCT OUT THE DOOR. Period.
    
    That's what Digital needs to do, and the simple fact is that
    Palmer can't do it quickly enough. It's not that he's incapable
    or doesn't understand what needs to be done. It's that
    his orders are twisted out of shape by the buearuacracy that's
    between him and the people who need to implement those orders.
    
    This company is like a microcosm of the government. A president,
    working with Congress, enacts a bill, but the bureaucarcy underneath
    perverts the intent and result of the executive/legislative order.
    What comes out is something entirely different than the intent.
    
    One thing I've never been accused of is naivete and altruism. I
    remain convinced that the only chance our technology has of
    surviving and thriving is when it is freed from the shackles
    of process-driven clerks.                             
    
    Glenn
    
    

    Glenn.... It's not the "process driven clerks" that are to blame.  It's
    upper management that won't take the recommendations of the worker bees
    to change these processes and procedures and hold these "clerks" to the
    P&P's on a daily, audited, basis....  When your job is on the line based
    on your compliance, you do what you're suppose to do.  Having been one
    of those "clerks" I'm surprised by your finger pointing.  If Digital
    would make decisions/policies/procedures/processes based on input from
    those that do the work (the clerks)rather than some TEAM that thinks 
    they know, the "STUPID" P&P's wouldn't be in the way....
    
    JP (who knows how to find "workarounds" that work) 

    I don't think the issue is whether Mr. Palmer is "listening" or even
    "understands" what the problems are.
    
    Like nearly any other chief executive, with a whole hierarchy
    underneath him, he just doesn't have CONTROL.  
    
    t.

    
    re: .31
    
    Sorry, that last sentence in my .30 was not intended to point
    fingers. It came out a bit more vituperative than I intended.
    I was trying to point out what I consider to be a wrong-headed
    approach to business. I have nothing against clerks.
    
    Glenn

    .20�    inseparable.  Mr. Palmer has put in place a cadre of VPs who certainly
    .20�    can provide him with enough accurate information about the "pieces",
    .20�    so that he can compile a accurate big picture.  Just as important as
    
    
    Yeah,kinda gives you a "warm-n-fuzzy" feeling that BP has surrounded
    himself with all those highly-paid VP's who gave all that great and
    timely information about our Q3 results.
    
    Ken