Conference 7.286::digital

The biggest complaint I have about any program to solicit feedback from the 
masses is that it appears that the feedback goes into a black hole. There has 
to be some follow-up and feeling that the feedback has been considered.

In terms of how to collect the feedback, a simple electronic mail account
would suffice, although I'd suggest perhaps a phone number where comments
could be left anonymously. Both would be best, because some of us communicate
more effectively one way more than the other. 

    
    There is always lots of feedback available. What management needs is
    'positive' listening skills. Don't classify a person, who offers
    his/her opinion, 'difficult'. When things always look different from
    different positions, even foolish sounding opinions usually carry some
    truth in them, if looked from the presenters viewpoint. Nurture tolerance 
    instead of expectation of homogeneity (should be a rule in an
    international company anyway).
    
    Listen, when feedback is given, not only, when you have asked.
    
    --Ritva
    

    
    Re .2: Exactly.
    
    Re .0 in the light of .2:
    
    It is interesting that "they", whoever they are, have *delegated* this
    work. It sounds as though they imagine that the author of .0 will be
    able to come up with a single, simple process that will handle employee
    involvement at all levels on all possible issues.
    
    Clearly this is a pipe dream. Different groups of people communicate in
    different ways, from different viewpoints, on different levels of
    abstraction, using different channels. People will respond very
    differently to personal and emotional issues, such as changes to
    compensation, as against issues of efficiency, personal expertise and
    business planning. There is no magic formula.
    
    My input would be:
    
    (1) You must always *work* at involving your employees (see .2).
        LISTEN, and LOOK AT IT FROM THE OTHER VIEWPOINT
    
    (2) Channels and process for soliciting feedback depend on the specific
        issue. Draw up a toolkit of different methods if you like, but make
        sure you pick the right one for the job in hand.
        (eg Mail account, phone line, questionnaire, open meetings, cold
        calling, WWW page, ...)
    
    (3) Do by all means discount the feedback once you have analysed and
        considered it. BUT, gut back to the contributors and let them know
        that you have done this, and *why*. Be truthful.
    
    Andy.

.0>    I've been asked to submit a proposal to see what would be the most
       effective way to getting feedback from employees when organizations
       are going through changes.
    
    Sounds to me like the author of .0 is a well-meaning person trying to
    carry out an assignment of some fairly out-of-touch management.  
    
    Sounds further that said management is temporizing in the best
    political tradition -- if it's a hard bar to "belly up to," then
    Appoint A Commission To Study It And Report Back With All Deliberate
    Speed -- when in reality, the answer is staring them in the face.  
    
    All the clues that this prospective study will provide will probably be
    ineffective in changing this aspect of our Corporate behavior.  Even
    though they are unlikely to be provided gratis.  No, THESE "free clues"
    will take time we don't have and will cost the many hourly dollars of
    well-meaning folks like .0 and those whom s/he asks for their advice.  
    
    As with the results of many such Official Commissions, their data will,
    I'm sorry to say, very likely drop into a bottomless well. 
    
    I contend that the question is trivially answered -- MBWA, MBNA,
    *LISTENING.*
    
    Q.E.D.

    
     Now I have seen two of these feedback requested notes. Is this a trend
    from higher ups. Are they interested in feedback? Of course they are.
    Now let me bust a bubble here. I am sick and tired of how do you feel
    notes, surveys, polls, lists, events, blah, blah and blah. I make it
    well known how I feel by showing up each and every day and doing my
    job. If you want to make someone feel better or get feedback....
    
     GO ASK IN PERSON, don't hire a consultant, don't create a survey,
    don't appoint a messenger. Do it yourself. You will be surprised
    by factors one cannot consider.
    
     What the heck is so darn wrong with this company? Nothing. Just get
    some people to do a job, and moves others to where they can do a job.
    
    -Go ahead ask me.
    -Mike Z.

    
    It seems there are 3643 threads of feedback, and growing, right here.

    I think the replies are in danger of shooting the messenger, although
    some constructive comments are possible to be teased out of them.
    
    Can't quite see why the requester needed to remain unidentified - is
    asking the best way of gathering employees opinions on a given subject
    so discraceful?
    
    I accept the previous replies' statements, that actually going to the
    employees and physically asking them is most straight-forward and gives
    a better answer than a questionaire, however, doing a straw-poll, 
    by asking the employees who happen to be near the originator of a
    policy could give unworkable answers also. This is most obvious when a
    Corporate policy/idea/product comes out that has only had USA input
    which is then interpreted as a World-wide policy.
    
    Agreed also with the requesters point that we do have some good
    Corporate Strategies though, but are terrible at implementing them. So
    anything that can be done to improve/speed-up that is welcome. So let's
    have some contructive ideas.
    
    regards,
    
    Lawrence.
     

    Hiring a consultant to do employee feedback stuff isn't always bad.
    
    When would I recommend a consultant?
    
    As a starting point when a problem was suspected and you wanted to find
    out what people really thought. Although most people probably think
    they would love to be asked their opinions by a VP or other senior
    manager, fear of retribution is still a factor for many. Some people
    might feel they have nothing to lose, yet others may hold back or
    "soften" their views and leave some things unsaid that need to be said.
    Consultants are good here IF they will relay the concerns exactly as
    they were said without revealing who said them. 
    
    When would I not use a consultant?
    
    A consultant should not be a substitute for good management practices
    which involve MBWA and being in touch with your people constantly. I
    would also not use a consultant if they could not guarantee anonymity
    or if they were going to 'pull punches' and not tell the whole story.
    
    A personal experience:
    
    While in the field, our VP hired an internal person to do an attitude
    assment of our organization. This person was an organizational
    consultant who walked around and talked to a large number of individual
    contributors. I saw his final presentation to the VP as it was
    delivered. The consultant made a few summary introductory remarks such
    as:
    
    	"Your people are frustrated because they don't have the tools
    	 to do their jobs right."
    	"Your people think that Excellence Awards are a beauty contest."
    	etc.
    
    Then he went into his formal slide presentation which consisted of 5
    pages, double-spaced, of quotations from the people he talked to. They
    were in no particular order, not ranked by importance or topics. Just
    comments which he embelished a bit when discussing them ... "this
    person was REALLY frustrated with ... and this is what he or she said."
    
    I was not at all surprised by any of these comments because I was only
    a first level manager and was aware of some of a lot of the issues.
    
    The VP however, had a different reaction. During the presentation of
    the second or third slide, the VP slammed her hands down on the desk
    and ordered the consultant to stop. She thought the report was "far too
    negative" and that none of the positive attitudes of her people were
    coming out. "They certainly don't talk that negatively when they are
    in my presence. There may be a few problems but I think this is too
    focused on the negatives."
    
    I wanted to say, "of course they don't talk to you this directly --
    they know you'll bite their damn heads off if they do." But I toned it
    down a bit (see ... I was scared of her too) and said "of course they
    don't talk to you this directly -- you're an important person. You are
    a vice president. People don't use these words when they are in the
    presence of a VP." I got one of her "dagger stares" anyway. 
    
    The point:  The consultant did a great job of getting to the heart of
                the issues and relaying people's true feelings.
    
    		The VP never heard the comments in this way because of
                management style (hated people who were 'negative' even if
                there was a good reason to be)
    
    The problems never all got addressed. Some of them were. Others were
    paid a lot of lip service, and others were ignored. This was more a
    factor of the VP's personality and management capabilities. 
    
    So, no matter what you do (hire a consultant or don't hire a
    consultant) the desire and commitment of management to do something
    about employee attitudes and morale are the most important thing to
    have. If they aren't committed, the truth doesn't really help.
    
    
    
    

    
    I have a message for senior management.
    
    Get out of your Ivory towers in New England and come out to the field
    to see where the **REAL** jobs are performed. There is more to this
    company than just New England. Also, if you stop cutting heads, and 
    benefits, and pay freezes etc... You might be amazed at what workers
    will do for this company. This is just MHO.
    
    Mark

    
    .0:
    
    Read a basic electronics textbook on feedback circuits. Note how
    such circuits use a signal from the output to adjuts the operation
    and modify the output, in a continuous loop. Note especially how
    such circuits are useless wastes of money if the feedback signal is
    lost or does not affect the output.
    
    This knowledge will arm you with the means to fix every nonfuctioning
    human feedback loop within DEC. (Hint: The feedback mechanism is
    irrelevant if the loop is not closed.)
    
    

    Even though many apparently think this is a waste of time, can't we
    assume that maybe something good would come if we helped .0 complete
    his/her mission? Why don't we put on our optimistic glasses and hope
    that this is an opportunity for us to help get things fixed? If it is
    yet another study that gets trashed we haven't lost much (since we'll
    likely be providing "feedback" in this conference as we've done all
    along), but on the off chance that it actually has an impact then we
    have before us the opportunity to possibly do something constructive.
    
    I have three suggestions for you, .0:
    	1. Create a new Notes file dedicated to the troops' providing
    	   feedback to whoever is listening. The notesfile would be
    	   moderated by upper mgmt representatives. This approach would
    	   approximate mbwa and would get everyone who is currently
    	   comfortable with noting. The conference could be advertised
    	   through Readers Choice, in EASYNOTES.LIS, and hardcopy
    	   memos. The only downside to this is the lack of anonymity,
    	   which these days seems to be a real problem.
    
    	2. Establish a VTX system (like the one that we did last year
    	   which was apparently ignored) that allows folks to provide
    	   feedback. This could probably be made anonymous (I'm not a
    	   VTX wizard) and would get folks who may not be Notes literate
    	   but who are familiar with VTX.
    
    	3. Establish an phone number (like the U.S. Gov't did with their
    	   "waste-busters" 800 number) for folks to simply call and leave
    	   a voice message for feedback.
    
    Each of these ideas has their own set of problems, but we are The
    Networking Company, right? We should be able to figure out a way to get
    past the problems if we want to. I'm sure there are other ideas out
    there just waiting to surface. What say we give it a chance?
    
    	BD�

    Have we forgotten all the great changes that came as a result of
    employee feedback from the VTX Employee Survey held last year?   
    

    As long as managers get rewarded for doing pointless things (initiating
    projects but not completing them, reorganizing, doing surveys they
    don't listen to), they will continue to do them.
    
    To get managers to pay attention and _respond_ to employees, simply
    predicate their raises (or continued employment) on the recommendations
    of their employees.  Then and only then will managers act on the
    information available from their employees.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    ... ASK!

    re: <<< Note 3642.10 by WLDBIL::KILGORE "Missed Woodstock -- *twice*!" >>>

    
>    .0:
>    
>    Read a basic electronics textbook on feedback circuits. Note how
>    such circuits use a signal from the output to adjuts the operation
>    and modify the output, in a continuous loop. Note especially how
>    such circuits are useless wastes of money if the feedback signal is
>    lost or does not affect the output.
>    
>    This knowledge will arm you with the means to fix every nonfuctioning
>    human feedback loop within DEC. (Hint: The feedback mechanism is
>    irrelevant if the loop is not closed.)
    
    note also that such feedback circuits are called NEGATIVE FEEDBACK.
    
    ;^}

    It is difficult to attempt to answer this note with a straight face,
    but here goes. The things that I might like to see are:
    
    1. Communicate "the Vision Thing", the strategies, the hoped for end
    point that is driving whatever decision that requires some
    input/feedback.
    
    2. Communicate honestly the constraints, so that a great deal of time
    is nopt wasted on ideas or alternative s that are clearly beyond
    realistic consideration.
    
    3. Give every employee some feeling of involvement, without requiring
    constant commitment to the process, by using a rotating "advisory
    board" type mechanism, using our network for the feedback, via Notes
    VTX or Mail (whatever is most comfortable).
    
    4. Come to grips with the issue of peoples differences of
    opinion/view/whatever so that the issue of identity is moot.
    
    5. Implement all of the above and then LISTEN!
    
    -OFWAMI- 

    How about coming out of the anonymous closet?  
    
    This is the second time the feedback notes have been covered
    via anonymous noters.  What are you afraid of?
    
    If you want to start communication between management and workers
    a good start would be to eliminate the distinction.  Get 'them' as well
    as 'us' into the same forum for discussion.  
    
    Here in HLO they tried the ask the manager charade and it was a joke.
    500 people watching for the sucker to dare to ask the real question.
    Each member of the audience firguring the one who asked gets his head
    chopped off.
    
    Bill....

    
    re -.1
    
    What is wrong with asking a question. One can always position it
    with a "will you promise NOT to fire me if I ask this question".
    Heck, in front of 500 people, it is kind of hard to dismiss someone
    for asking a question. So now we all grovel and think about what we
    did not ask for.
    
    Incredible.
    -Mike Z.

    Well, someone beat me to mentioning the survey of last year, but lets
    return there...
    
    Somebody, somewhere wanted a survey.  We all filled one out.  From what
    I saw, at a corporate level (the most watered-down and nonspecific, but
    the only one shown, and even then only in a most non-specific way)
    there were areas of problems - that differed SIGNIFICANTLY from those
    expressed by people in some localities (many of whom have voted with
    their feet since the issues raised were not corrected to their
    satisfaction). 
    
    The information was encoded such that it could be easily determined
    what the reponses in a specific geography were.  Were the concerns
    expressed at the LOCAL lovel addressed?  At a larger level, the
    information could be rolled up at a PSC level.  Were the concerns at
    that level addressed?  NOT just listed, put on an overhead and "taken
    under advisement", but ADDRESSED AND FIXED?  And, if they ARE NOT FIXED
    at a local level, will anyone CARE about the corporate-wide problems? 
    Perhaps the data from this survey should be addressed before embarking
    on another attempt to get "feedback".
    
    Besides, people are providing feedback every day.  My DC or SI or
    acronym-of-the-week unit has gone from a high of ~29 people to 6, and 2
    of those are transplants.  The solution - put out reqs to hire 6 more
    people...  When people who are actually doing the work don't feel
    valued, and there are jobs to be had...

The whole problem with delegating somebody to ask is, as has been stated
before, that the responses eventually get filtered and the input that
the SLT sees is skewered.

Its been the same with customer surveys lo these many years.  Since the SLT
saw "modified" data from the cusotmer base, the world was rosy from their
vantage point.  This resulted in management decisions that have led us to
where we are today.

As for my thoughts:  Reward good employees with decent salary increases that
at least allows them to keep up with the inflation rate.  And by good I mean
dedicated, hard-working, productive individual-contributors who are always
on the job, doing what has to be done to make this company profitable.

Ws

I think that the key is that there HAS to be two forms of feedback
to the employees:

1) Immediate feedback letting the person know that their time spent
     informing you was not wasted, and that the information was received
     and is valued.
2) (equally important) VISIBLE RESULTS.  Doesn't mean that you have to agree    
    with and act upon every single input received, but there SHOULD be SOME
    identifiable case where mass grass-roots input results in visible changes.
    Currently, I can point to none.

Without both of the above, the channel/mechanism for collecting feedback is moot
because your sources will rightly conclude that providing input into that
channel is a waste of their time.

Kevin Farlee

Trying to figure out how to say this positively.  Maybe this question in .0 is
an indication that the people who make the key decisions in Digital are
recognizing that it costs (money, time, effort, people...) to maintain
communication with the rest of the company.  I'd like to think that this would
be the beginning of some repetitive or continuous efforts to keep channels open
to non-managerial employess.  Maybe we'll see the establishment of "ombudsmen"
and repeated stable attempts at getting feedback.  I think to address the past
problems of refusing to accept unwanted results, and retribution, and garbled
transmissions, there needs to be well-advertised, objective, and stable avenues
of feedback that cannot be interfered with because they are supported and
defended by individuals of enough authority to protect them.  Maybe we'll see
that some day?                          Rich

    Wow, I've taught college & postgrad. statistics in my time and I know
    about the "skewness" and even the "kurtosis" of data distributions, but
    goshdarn it, I'll bet the survey data shown to the SLT *were*, in fact,
    
    skewered.
    
    Nice one!!!
    

    I would like to differentiate between a survey and feedback given 'on the 
    job'. It's a little bit like a difference in psychological tests when your 
    creativity is analysed. You may be asked, where to use a certain appliance 
    apart form it's reqular use (i.e. problem finding), or the opposite,
    assuming a problem in a specific situation, what would be your solution.
    
    In a survey we try to list, whatever problems happen to be on the top
    of our list at the moment. The result is often slightly artificial. 'On 
    the job' feedback addresses a real life situation and brings also more often
    some solution models. And I don't feel so damn foolish, when giving
    the feedback. And let it show, that you are listening, not only in a
    nice (or not so nice ;^) ) response letter, but with real actions.
    
    So once more, LISTEN when we give feedback, organise an easy, no risk,
    continuous method to express opinions, when we feel that we have
    something to say. That same applies to customer feedback.
    
    --Ritva
    

    Well, here's my 2 cents worth...
    
    The survey accounts seem to be very easy to deal with, and efficient.
    But then we rarely here the results or what is done anyway.  I have
    participated in many many surveys but rarely do I hear back on the
    results.
    
    Does everyone remember the survey we took last January regarding how we
    felt about management?  An independend company was in charge of it, as
    I remember, and I remember that the results showed that employees did
    not have faith in Digital management, etc, were very negative, and that
    those at the top were surprised by this!
    
    No one in the ranks was.
    
    But was anything ever done with our surveys? 
    
    I picture this...
    
    Sitting around the board table saying, "Look at those low scores!  Can
    you imagine?  Look, we have low morale?  Can you imagine?  I mean I
    know times are tough but look at all these zero scores for morale?  Can
    you imagine?"
    
    and then shaking their heads and a pipe up of, "We should do something
    about this!" seconded by a, "Yes, we must do something about the morale
    in our company!"  Then a bunch of mumbles and on to the next subject!
    
    It seems that when there is direct feedback it is effective.
    
    Remember when the board or was it the SLT?  Anyway, remember when they
    cut tuition reimbursement?  How many of us outraged employees sent
    letters directly to those in charge?  Got something turned over, didn't
    it?
    
    So I think if there is a method in place to do something with the
    feedback, you'll find a lot of options to get the feedback.
    
    But if we feel the answers are a moot point, that nothing will be done
    with them anyway...
    
    like SBS...I remember when I was in a meeting and we used to feed those
    skills sets up to corporate somewhere every few months...drove us
    crazy, took up time, and it was a con call and someone finally asked,
    "What's done with these skill set reports anywa?"
    
    Answer:  "Uhhhhh, well nothing now.  We're working on getting a group 
              together to analyze the data and, uh,..."
    
    Next thing you know you heard, "This is Chicago, we're not filling one
    more out," CLICK
    
    "This is St. Louis, it's a waste of our time!  If not one is even
    looking at the things forget it!  We've got better things to do, like
    support our customers!"  CLICK
    
    "This is Dallas.  Count us out!"  CLICK
    
    "This is Detroit. We're out too!"  CLICK
    
    Get the idea?
    
    

    The best method of getting feedback from employees is to do what you
    have done right now. That is to use VAX NOTES. 
    
    The advantages are 
    
    - 	It is open. Anyone can see what other's have said before giving
    	his/her opinion.
    
    -	Progress on the action taken can be given by the one requesting the
    	feedback so that every responder is happy.
    
    -	Responses can keep coming in without any cut-off date.
    
    
    Sunder

    I agree, but only insofar as the "listeners" realize, and act on the
    realization, that those who write in Notes are only a small subset of
    those who read, and that even the latter are (I'm less sure of this) a
    small subset of the entire employee population.  As we shrink, I'm even
    more unsure of the latter hypothesis...?
    
    One should also take into account the tendency for criticism to attract
    more critics, which trend has been known to occur :-) in this forum.
    
    Whether justified or unjustified -- it depends on your POV...
    

    re:  <<< Note 3642.27 by QCAV01::CSUNDER "Use computers to save paper" >>>
                               -< Use VAX NOTES >-

<    The best method of getting feedback from employees is to do what you
<    have done right now. That is to use VAX NOTES. 
    
    Wow...!!! Can you IMAGINE what the replies would look like if one of
    the SLT openly put a request for such information in here???
    
    NOTE COLLISION ALERT!!!
    
    tony

    
    
    From speaking to other employees at our office, it seems that the 
    frustrations voiced here are shared throughout much of the corporation.  
    The folks who participate in notes might be more vocal than most, but 
    the feelings and ideas shared in this forum seem to be fairly universal 
    with people that I know who do not participate in notes (at least this 
    has been my experience).  
    
    
    
    Mike

    True, Mike, but to amplify on your note and mine from earlier today,
    there are many folks whose "communication style" is not written, much
    less written one-to-many (many folks can handle EMail but are far more
    reticent in a public forum).  These different styles need accomodating,
    somehow.
    
    /s/ a well-known "squeaky wheel"...
    

    
    
    
    Agreed Dan, 100%.  One would have thought the survey would have done
    some of this.  
    
    
    Mike

.30
>    From speaking to other employees at our office, it seems that the 
>    frustrations voiced here are shared throughout much of the corporation.  

That was certainly my experience, when I was a Digital employee back in 1994.
I reflected some of these frustrations and issues and took some heat for it.
Now, I'm a Digital contractor and I have no (public) opinion of Digital
internal affairs.  In fact, I'm working hard at doing a good job for my
new employer, which in turn, is working to do a good job for Digital.
There won't be any disappointments.

Notes, especially DIGITAL notes, are a fairly good barometer of company 
sentiment among Digital employees.

Mark

    Since people at my site never got any useful information regarding the
    corporate survey one might ask what was the point? As far as I know we
    never heard anything at all about it after completing it other than the
    results would be communicated downward. maybe we're too far down?
    
    dave

    I often wondered what happened to the MCS meeting in Ca. Weren`t they
    suppose to send something out on the results?

    here in Ontario (LOO) we have had a meeting discussing the results of
    the renew survey. We were told the result and that the top issue were
    all being worked in groups. Our unit was asked to come up with our top
    3 concerns and then develope a plan to see it resolved. Everything from
    the field is supposed to get channeled upward and the steps taken by
    the upper levels are supposed to be communicated back to the field.
    
    Brian V
    

As far as I know, our group has not heard anything about the re-gnu survey.

Bob

So, tell me, .0, what do you think of the responses so far?

The consensus, if one can call it that, is that this Notesfile is the
leading feedback mechanism currently available, but that it needs to
be supplemented by something that provides for anonymity in sensitive
cases.  Further, Email or VTX Feedback mechanisms can play a role.  In
addition, issue-related Notesfiles can be opened.

A strong undercurrent of the string to this point is that none of it is
worth poop if the feedback doesn't also generate feedback, in the form of
a concrete sense that the backfeeders have been heard.

It has long been a mystery to me that members of the SLT don't consider
it worth their while to participate actively in ::DIGITAL.  I would
consider it dereliction of duty if it turned out they don't even read,
but even the occasional answer would create an instant worldwide rush
of exhilaration as ICs realized we are being listened to.

Steve

    There are two sides to the question:
    
    1.  What kind of info does the SLT team look for?  Employee morale is a
    squishy subject and not easily addressed using a survey.  But process
    improvement can happen if it is focused, the people who participate are
    willing and experienced, and if the process of improvement includes
    reiterative reviews and flexibility.
    
    In other words, surveys are only useful if you know exactly what kind
    of information you are looking for and already have an idea of how you
    will react to the input.
    
    2. The "us - them" gap between management and the individual
    contributors is in my opinion a useless interference to improving the
    way Digital works and our success as a company.  I believe performance
    reviews ought be done regularly, by team members as well as other
    contacts.  The managers should be reviewed by their
    employees, like employees are subject to management review.
    
    Finally, I think this Notes file is a really good source of information
    about the company in general, as well as problems and successes in
    individual disciplines and geographical locations.
    
    Does the original noter read these responses?  It's been a week since
    .0 was posted.  If I were on the SLT, I would read this conference.  
    (I might not input to notes, but I would read it avidly!)  Say, I
    wonder if anyone is listening?
    
      

    There is an attitude that appears to purvade many employees including
    me and that is the company is no longer the caring company that it once
    was, some of that perception has as its foundation that the company no
    longer acts on the feedback that it gets from the employee surveys etc
    if the feedback is contrary to what the areas requesting the feedback
    want to hear. I think that people would be prepared to share more of
    their feelings, thoughts etc if .....
    
    o The results of feedback were published speedily once collated
    o The areas requesting the feedback gave their views of the feedback at
    the same time with a statement of whether actions were going to be
    taken or not.
    o If actions were going to be taken they should inform when the action
    and its timetable would be published ie a plan will be formulated by
    xweek.
    
    
    I agree with previous suggestions that a separate Notes Conference
    could allow continual feedback for those requesting it.
    
    Why should it always be so hidden on who is requesting the feedback?
    
    
    my two pennyworth
    
    Pete

    > Why should it always be so hidden on who is requesting the feedback?
    
    This does raise some interesting questions...
    
    .0 may have some very good reasons for anonymity, for example,
    just knowing who it is may skewer the feedback something he
    or she may want to avoid.
    
    More importantly though, this (and other) notes files is the most
    powerful tool Digital has for communication (which is for me by
    definition two way). I've always wondered why it isn't used much
    more extensively by management to communicate and discuss. 
    
    Bill Troy has done some pioneering work here with his series of mailings
    on the background and policies wrt Digital advertising and the
    community has thanked him profusely for it and yet I am sure that
    Bill would be the first to agree that he is doing no more than what 
    any enlightened manager should be doing. The end result is that with
    minimal effort Bill has been able to present and defend to a large 
    part of the Digital community a coherent advertising policy: one that we 
    now at least all understand and most agree with.
    
    What I don't understand is why others don't use this medium to 
    present and defend (and sharpen) their policies. Is it because
    it is just-not-done, ignorance, inability to guage the power
    of the notes medium, inability to use notes, fear of attack by
    the notes community, all of the above? I don't know... 
     
    re roelof
    
    
    

    <tongue_in_cheek>
    Another possible theory:  Wattage difference?
    </tongue_in_cheek>

    Many years ago, in a culture far, far away, I had a manager inside
    digital who had "sensing meetings" for small groups of people to find
    out what our issues were.  Said manager took early retirement a few
    years ago, but I believe what he was doing was sound and I really did
    feel the feedback got back unfiltered.
    
    He would start with someone from HR, (I know we don't have one anymore,
    but.......) and that person would get us together in small groups and
    ask us three questions about each of our managers:
    
    1.  what do you want them to stop doing?
    
    2.  What do you want them to keep on doing?
    
    3.  What changes do you recommend for this manager?
    
    She would talk to all the groups to get a basic idea of our "top 10"
    and then would bring us back in to make sure what we felt wasn't too
    watered down by her interpretation of the various groups' wordings on
    this.  This was presented anonymously to our management staff and then
    we would work after a bit on the feedback between managers and us.  
    
    Believe it or not, I actually saw postive results from this, I had a
    better relationship with those managers then I have had before or
    since, and it also helped to equip me with enough backbone to try and
    engage other managers I have worked with into a dialog of some sort
    when I see something amiss.  
    
    If your management is serious about getting feedback and your team has
    deteriorated to the point where face-to-face dialogue is impossible,
    this may well be a method that you can use if it hasn't gone too far.
    Of course it also means that those of us in the trenches have to be
    committed enough to be willing to make constructive suggestions.  Just
    whining doesn't fit in with this format.  
    
    meg

When I was a supervisor (very rewarding job, for about four years), one
of our managers had the supes gather (without him) and develop a review
of his performance. When we were finished, one person gathered all the
findings and presented them to the manager in a written performance
review. It actually caused some beneficial behavior modification (to use
the dry words). In other words, he changed the way he did some things. We
did this annually for two or three years. 

Not quite as anonymous as -.1, but the messenger _was_ protected.

We found the two-way evaluations very beneficial. I think that the
manager *and* the supes grew from this. The individual contributors and
the business also benefited.

Later, one-way (I think they drank Autocrat Coffee exclusively) organizational
structures lacked this feedback, and suffered accordingly.

Art

   re: .41
   
   >>  What I don't understand is why others don't use this medium to
   >>  present and defend (and sharpen) their policies. Is it because
   >>  it is just-not-done, ignorance, inability to guage the power
   >>  of the notes medium, inability to use notes, fear of attack by
   >>  the notes community, all of the above? I don't know...
      
   I entered a note on the GATT agreement (see 3510.0).  I found the 
   ensuing discussion very valuable.  It demonstrated two important things:
   
      a) although many questioned the agreement on broad political or 
         social grounds, no one questioned that the agreement is good 
      	 for Digital's business interest; and 
   
      b) no one objected to the encouragement made to Digital employees to 
         communicate their views on the agreement to their Congressmen and 
         Senators. 
   
   My only regret was that no one stimulated a sharpening discussion on the 
   central issue of why the agreement is a good thing for Digital.  Maybe it 
   is too obvious that liberalizing trade is good for companies with global 
   postures such as ours.
   
   Tom