Conference 7.286::digital

    Salary increases for those that aren't in higher management?

It seems to me that your base assumption is that the "new deal" between
Digital and it's employees is somehow different than for any other large
corporation and it's employees.  I think that assumption is false.

Now, it may or may not have been false in the past.  But it seems to me
that Digital is now well into the mainstream of US corporate culture,
such that it is no longer a haven with a significantly different management
style than other large high-tech corporations.  I do believe that it has 
a different *technical* culture, one which I thoroughly like and approve
of (as evidenced by NOTES and some of the innovative things coming out
of Engineering), but that is not what we are discussing.

Before we start, let me propose a change in terminology.  "New Deal" seems
to me to deliberately focus on Roosevelt's changes in the US government,
in which you had a strong and pro-active federal government deliberately
making changes which impacted the lives of US citizens on a daily and very
fundamental basis.  We can disagree whether this was good or bad, but that
certainly is the concept.  May I propose the word "compact" between the
corporation and the employees, where each have certain duties and each have
certain responsibilities, and now we have to define what those are.  I prefer
to reflect the Mayflower Compact, since it is more neutral politically.

The compact between the corporation and a given employee seems to me to
be as follows:

Employees deliver on their assigned job responsibilities, while keeping
track of a changing global (ie, local group, larger district, company wide
and industry level) environment, in order to be ready for the next series
of changes which will take place.  It is the employees responsibility to
prepare the plan for meeting next years new job, and to work with their
boss to implement that plan (training, et al).

The corporation delivers on the pay and benefits, while itself keeping track
of a changing global (see above) environment, in order to be ready for the
next series of changes which will take place for the entire corporation.  It
is the corporations responsibility to assist the employee in implementing
the employee's plan to prepare for next years new job, by making training
and other assistance available (ie, paying for it and giving time off to
take that training, et al).

Is this different than it was 10 years ago?  It is a little more blunt, and
there are fewer places to hide when you are not prepared for next years job,
but I don't think it is too different.  The difference between now and 20
years ago is the penalty for failure to prepare.  20 years ago if you were
not prepared for next years job you missed out on the larger raise or the
next promotion, or didn't get to transfer to the new group which was doing
something really neat, or got handed a stack of SPRs and told that it was 
your job to fix them.  Today you get laid off.  But there was still a penalty
for failure to prepare, then and now.

In many fields today, but especially in this field, change is not a constant 
thing, it is a constantly *increasing* thing.  My job is different than it
was last year: new technology, new hardware, new interconnections, etc.  If
I don't learn every single day of my life, I will be obsolete in 6 months.
And I will suffer the penalty for that obsolescence.

But, I hear you cry, when corporations don't prepare then employees suffer
the penalties, but not vice-versa.  I don't believe that.  I believe that
corporations fail *when* employees fail, it is just that the pain is more
spread out (lower stock prices, leading to layoffs).  I give you Apple 
today, and Digital 5-6 years ago.  We failed to prepare, and we suffered
the consequences of that failure (stock price in the teens, etc).

Now, do the employees and Digital always deliver on this compact?  No.  
There have been some layoffs where people who were prepared for the future
were incorrectly laid off, and there are cases where employees are not doing
their job to prepare for the future, preferring to do the same thing they
have always done.  This is true of line grunts like me and middle to senior
managers.  Well, Darwin is always waiting to take care of these people.

But I believe this describes the compact between a corporation and it's
employees, one which I am comfortable living with.  We each have some big
responsibilities, and as long as Digital is living up to it's side of the
bargain (and for me it almost always has), then I will live up to my side.

-- Ken Moreau

    As I recall, Sid was interviewed in a Digital Today not to long ago,
    (Dec? Jan?; same issue that had article on 'variable compensation')
    where he said something to the effect that the "compact" had shifted
    from lifetime employment to lifetime employability.
    
    I tend to agree with .-1, except that I think the company has a larger
    role; rather than "assist the employee in implementing the employee's
    plan to prepare for next years new job", the company should _insure_
    that employees are 'prepared for next years new job'. This means that
    the company should proactively attempt to develop the skill sets of 
    the existing employee population "to be ready for the next series of
    changes which will take place for the entire corporation".
    
    Note that this doesn't preclude employees from "keeping track of a
    changing global ... environment" and developing/pursuing their own 
    "plan for meeting next years new job, and to work with their boss to
    implement that plan". But it does require that the company both plan
    for and promote training of it's existing workforce. 
    
    The company should accept responsibility for developing the skill set 
    of its employees; the employees should accept responsibility for
    pursuing/acquiring the skill sets the company will need.
    
    For example, let's say the company determines it is going to need 1000
    Microsoft Certified software engineers. It should put a training program 
    in place and promote its availability. Employees should review programs
    offered, pursue the training, and acquire the needed skill set. And if 
    either side doesn't do it's part, both suffer the consequences.
    
    Dave

    	This same issue of The Digital Leader had an article which
    discussed how Digital's core values are synonymous with Dr. Martin
    Luther King's moral values, how Digital's most important asset is its
    people, and how highly those people are valued. What a crock. It's a
    good thing I keep a barf bag handy these days. We speak of integrity
    and high moral values out of one side of our mouths while we close
    plants and heave people out the door with little or no foresight at the
    same time. It makes me nauseous. Apparently, it's getting harder and
    harder to see what's actually going on from Mount Olympus. It's amazing
    we can spew out this crapola with a straight face.

    re:  MLK's moral values...

    Didn't he have ooodles and ooooodles of affairs???

    Whoa! Major Rathole alert! Let's get back to the real topic here. I
    tend to agree with -3 that the Company has a greater role to
    proactively define and implement the employee readiness
    programs/training. I say that because, in theory, the leadership of the
    company has the clearest view of where the company is headed, i.e. the
    grand strategy, so they also should be best positioned to plan for
    employee skill set needs. 
    
    The interesting 90's kind of slant on all that is that it is sometimes
    perceived to be more expedient to just discard the old, out of date 
    workers and hire new, current-skilled workers. That would lead me to also 
    support the earlier arguement that each worker should make some effort to 
    keep themselves versed in the latest, greatest technologies, both as a 
    way to hopefully stay ahead of the game within the company and as a hedge 
    against becoming un-employable, should you have to leave the company.
    
    So what would all of this mean in day-to-day practice? I believe that
    it would wise to have a plan in mind to sit with your manager and lay
    out a personal continuing education/training plan in which you try to
    get management's insights into future needs and try to cook in your
    desirers or preferences for skills training. Right now it is relatively
    easy to volunteer to be trained as one of the Digital committed
    Microsoft SE's. That is probably a good thing to go for, since there
    will be great job opportunities both within Digital and outside in the
    coming years. There are probably many other expamples that apply to
    different jobs and folks within Digital. 
    
    As to the base note. I tend to agree with the reply that stated that
    Digital is now not any different than any other big, US company. Having
    lived through the "good ole days", I can't see that this all bad. We
    definitly had groups, if not layers, of incompetent proof sources of
    the Peter Principle within the company in the good ole days. And, the
    matrix management that we were so proud of was always a nightmare to
    get anything done within. If anything about the more recent changes is
    disturbing, it has been the impact of constant change on our ability
    (or inability) to articulate a corporate strategy. That is now starting 
    to gel. So, now we work for a company, like any other big company in the
    US, but at least one that has a reasonably good set of products and a
    reasonably good strategy for its market. what more could we possible
    want in today's world? 
            
    -OFWAMI-

    re: .6, I'm glad to see someone else agrees with my thoughts in .3
    
    Note that I didn't say that an employee shouldn't take an active role
    in evaluating/enhancing their skill set. I just feel that the company
    also should have a responsibility in this area as part of the 'deal'.
    
    In addition, I think this would demonstrate that the company does 
    care about its employees; that management does not simply ascribe 
    to the 'discard the old skills, hire in the new skills' model, but
    rather makes the effort to preserve "its most valuable asset". Of 
    course the employee has a part in this compact, and if they don't
    participate (ie partake of the training) then they must accept the
    consequences (ie risk of lay-off/replacement).
    
    Regardless of the quotes about 'getting a puppy', I see nothing wrong
    with (and much to be gained by) a demonstration of loyalty by both
    parties. If Sid really wants to define a 'new deal', announcement of 
    an open, widely advertised, training policy and program, not subject 
    to individual unit budgets but funded by corporate, would go a long 
    way towards a 'lifetime employability' company/employee compact.
    
    Dave

One implication of a short-term-only view of employment is that there is
a disincentive to invest in anything really Digital-specific (particularly
anything that requires a significant continuing "investment" that may get
blown away at any point in time.)  If people behave that way over time,
you tend to get higher turn-over over time since there is less incentive
to remain.  Furthermore, you may also find that your company doesn't have
any particular sustainable competitive advantage in the marketplace (read:
lower margins if taken to an extreme.)

FWIW - I absolutely agree with keeping "portable" skills current.  What
concerns me is that for Digital to be successful long-term is that it
has to have some "added value" other than simply being a "random" collection
of "current skill set people".  (Of course, carrying this to the extreme:
if you *really* only view things as being short term, then the success
or failure of Digital doesn't matter to you - all that matters is whether
your own skill set is marketable for the next job, and you don't expect
to be around for the long haul, so you don't plan for it...)

I personally think part of the issue as well is somewhat dependent on job
type.  For some types of things, the work is geared toward shorter term
goals/items and maybe shorter term relationships "work".

On the other hand, (for example) trying to run engineering projects with
lifetimes measured in years - or technologies with longevities measured
in even longer cycles - having the parties view relationships as being
short term can be extremely counter-productive.  The worst-case is things
that previously "converged" no longer being achievable.  (You definitely
don't want things to get too old and in-grown either - you can err in either
direction.  The key is "balance over time" - something that Digital hasn't,
and still doesn't - do particularly well at.  Getting in and out of markets
and having "unpredictable" presence is one symptom, IMO.)

(And talking of investing in employees, re-instating something like
the old GEEP program would be one way of demonstrating seriousness about
investment in employees.)

Note that one can think of things as an investment in some ways - you
aren't going to get long-term rates of return if you're only willing
to invest in extremely liquid investments.  (And on the other hand,
if you only bet on particular long term things, you can find yourself
locked out of other opportunites.)  What's needed is a balance...

    
    rep .5
    
    And George Washington, FDR, JFK, King Solomen (sp), Bill Clinton (?),
    Gary Hart, Thomas Jefferson, 60% of married men (estimate), 30%
    of married women, etc.
    
    So What?  Does it detract from what said person/persons accomplished?
    
    We all have character flaws, all of us, if you don't think you do, I
    just found one for you (you as in all of us), vanity.
    
    And I don't know for a fact that Martin had any affairs, though the
    media and his detractors say he did.
    
    He accomplished much, did the "best" he could.  Which was preety damn
    good.  And gave his life for equality, for all men, and women.
    
    Does a suppossed or actual affair take away any of that, does it affect
    his moral stance on the issues of his day, does it detract from the
    love he preached for everybody.  
    
    Not in my opinion!
    
    /art
    

>    rep .5
    
>    And George Washington, FDR, JFK, King Solomen (sp), Bill Clinton (?),
>    Gary Hart, Thomas Jefferson, 60% of married men (estimate), 30%
>    of married women, etc.
    
>    /art
    
    
    You make it difficult to take your entry seriously by placing a
    question mark after Bill Clinton's name.
    
    But I digress.
    
    jeff
    

    Errr....let's keep out of that rathole of the last few.  If you want
    start a new note, this one should stay on track for hopefully Sid
    to read and gather input and info. from us on his vision.  The line of
    thinking here as been great, keep it coming folks, they need this
    upstairs.
    
    Mav

Re: .0
> So, folks what do you think the "new deal" should be here?

The question in .0 has been made invalid by the changes in the corporation.

What I mean is this:
I believe that, one major aspect of the "new deal" in my view is that
the corporation will do what it wants regardless of what we think.

See for example the changes in the pension plan.  It may be good for you,
or it may be bad for you, depending on your circumstances, but I do not
recall any of us being ASKED.

So, the "new deal" is that it doesn't matter what WE THINK the "new deal"
should be here.

Kevin

    I agree - and goes to what I alluded to in .1.
    
    More than ever - it feels like a class structure to me here - and a
    fairly disjointed one at that.
    
    Fine - so maybe a corporation shouldn't be run as a democracy - and of
    course, that makes perfect sense.
    
    But let me ask the following questions.  Do any of the changes we're
    seeing/hearing about make you feel any more valued - a part of the
    organization?
    
    

    RE .8 You're right on with most of your observations and points. Indeed
    the "culture" (if it can even be called that) that has replaced the
    "old Digital" is much more every-man-for-himself (every-person-for
    themself to be PC) oriented. This is not the sole result of Digital's
    internal actions. One has only to read about and/or sense what's
    happening in the business world in general to see that Digital (and IBM
    and many other big, old-line companies) have been forced to abandon
    their quaint corporate cultures for the new, agressive, "lean and mean"
    veneer of the 90's. This veneer tries to pass for a culture, but barely
    succeeds. 
    
    At the same time, it's interesting to read about younger
    companies in our and other industries...the attitudes that they have...
    the things that they still do (everybody out for beer and pizza on Friday
    afternoons, office pranks, etc.)...the fun that they appear to be
    having. reminds us all of the better parts of "the good ole days". I've
    talked to many ex-Digits who've joined some of those companies. The
    grass really isn't greener over there...the paint on the grass is just
    newer. 
    
    The fact is that we can't go home again. What we've got left, right now, 
    is about what it's going to be for the foreseeable future. This is the
    New Deal in America and at Digital. Soooo, it's time to suck it up and 
    deal with it. Get marketable within digital and stay marketable to the 
    outside. The company is just the place that you work and to pay for the
    things you really value and enjoy - family, friends and personal activities.
    What management might want to focus on is replacing the old corporate
    culture that they have so successfully eliminated with something. Right
    now I don't know how a current employee would explain to someone
    looking at Digital as an employer what our culture is ... "you go to
    work and then you go home" doesn't seem very exciting to talk about.
    
    -OFWAMI-

I wasn't suggesting we could "go home again" - just suggesting that
the pendulum has swung from one excessive extreme (people didn't need
to be particularly responsible because the company basically didn't
fire anyone) to the other extreme.  Both extremes tend to have much
less correlation with individual performance than is desirable.

A "more sustainable" model is in the middle, where there is a stronger
correlation between individual performance (particularly longer term
rather than instantaneous) and outcome.  The less correlation there is,
the less incentive there is for people to engage in "desireable" behavior
(this is true both for the company and the country.)  Just because "lots
of other companies are doing it" doesn't make it either right or sustainable.
"Herds" (highly coherent systems) are frequently subject to catastrophic
failure modes.  (Buffalo #1232 that ran off the cliff wound up being just
as dead as the first one.)

Put differently, "you get what you measure".  If you measure the wrong
things (only short term), you're going to get exactly the behavior
you encourage.  (Hint: Large scale organisms don't function because
it's "every cell for itself".  That's one *of several* building blocks.)

Binge/starve (which seems to be true at a lot of big companies) isn't
very healthy for corporations, any more than it is for an individual.
Longevity tends to be correlated with "consistently healthy" people.
(Of course, you can validly argue that longevity in and of itself isn't
a goal.)

I personally believe it isn't necessary to be "mean" to be "lean", though
others may well not agree.

re .2 

Well put!  I believe this is the direction I see in my job
in MCS.  Either I take advantage of the current projected 
direction of the technology and Digital's choice in which
business it will invest in, or I should lose my job.

re .3

I disagree that the company should "insure" employee readiness,
rather they make available the necessary training/information
and that the employee should make the effort to invest in it.
If the employee does not, the company cannot be held responsible
but they can simply hire those that can complete the tasks.

I do believe the company must change the compensation model
to keep employees that can make the transition year after year.
Company loyalty is not a paradym employees can afford anymore
however, the company cannot afford to lose these people.

jb

    The other day, I heard a coworker speak of an article in the LA Times
    business section about a program at IBM to give the employees who
    stuck it out through the hard time an 8% bonus. No further details are
    known. If anyone else has heard of this article, please post it!
    
    Bob

    
    
    	Re: -1,   Wow, that would really raise morale.  Let me dream...
                  
    		  Lately I have been thinking about, and missing ole'
    		  Canobie Lake Park outings.  Let's get some fun factored
    		  back into the New Deal.  Can't we afford it now?
    
    ems
    		  

    I'm in a position to know a little bit about the bonuses recently
    handed out at IBM. Two key things to understand.  Everybody got a
    bonus, if you got a 5 on your most recent review you still got a 7%
    bonus, possibly with a pink slip but you got something. If your
    business unit met it's financial targets you got an additional 7%, some
    business units who's goals are to build market share now for profits
    later got this bonus for breaking even. Your average employee in a
    successful department got about 20% total. 

    
    Another question....what ever happened to employee discounts for
    company sponsored non-profit organizations, ie. Boston Museum or
    aquariums, Sturbridge Village, etc.  Does the company do this anymore?
    I lost track.  If is does, I would like to know if there are any
    employee discounts for the Boston Aquarium and Museum, and whom would
    I contact?
    
    ems
    	

Interesting discussion (except for the rat-holes)! Let's see, where do I start?

I noticed several patterns in the replies so far, some of which are very
heartening, others of which are very dis-heartening.

I like Kent Glossop's analysis of the dangers of exclusively short-term or
long-term thinking.  But that goes back to what I was trying to say earlier
in .2: the possibility and methods for failure are many (and Kent lists
several), but the penalties for failure for both employees and corporations
are much more severe and occur much more swiftly today than they did before.

But I found the attitudes in .1, .12, .13, .18 and .20 disturbing, because
they expressed either "What can the corporation give me?" (.1, .18, .20) or
an attempt to foster class envy and divisiveness that I think we don't need
or want (.12 and .13).  

.13 talked about the class structure, which I don't think is present here: I 
don't see any manager who is comfortable in their position, just a group of 
people who recognize that they themselves are in as much danger of being out 
of a job as any lowly line grunt, but that they have much less ability to 
actually affect their success or failure.  They depend on the line grunts to 
do their job in order for the managers to succeed, and most of the managers 
I know are painfully aware of this fact.  There are good and bad managers, of 
course, as there are good and bad line grunts, but I don't see anything like 
the deliberate divisions that I perceive in .13.  

And .12 might even be worse: stating that the corporation will do what it 
wants regardless of how the employees feel about it.  Well, guess what:
employees tend to do what they want regardless of how the corporation feels
about it!  If I decide to start lazing off (ie, barely doing my work, not
preparing anywhere near what needs to be done, ignoring phone calls, and
just doing the abolute minimum necessary to keep my job, and that poorly),
the corporation might not like it, but they have little recourse in the
short term.  And if I decide to work twice as hard, go into total burnout
mode, and do such a fantastic job in the short term that I completely collapse
and am hospitalized for exhaustion and stress and am out for 6 months, the
corporation can't do much about that either.  And if I decide to quit and
go somewhere else, the corporation still won't like it, and still can't do
much about it!  So saying that "the poor helpless employees are powerless 
against the great big powerful corporation" seems one-sided and inflammatory,
as well as simply wrong.

But both of these theories, along with .3, .6 and .7 which talk about how
the corporation needs to "insure" that employees are trained for the next
series of changes, comes from a single belief, which I don't happen to 
share: the belief that some higher power (your parents, a corporation, the
government) is basically omnipotent and can do anything, and that it has a
duty to take care of poor helpless you, and that you cannot and therefore
don't need to do anything to help yourself, since your entire life is
completely outside of your control.

Think about .1, which advocates raises for the rest of us: where does the 
money come from?  Bob Palmer's salary, spread across 60,000 people, comes to
less than $15 per person per year.  That's not his raise, that's his *salary*.

Think about .3 and .6, which talk about "insuring" training.  How would you
implement that?  The corporation is making it available, is paying for it,
and is (at least in my experience) publicizing it and encouraging people to
schedule it.  Should they arbitrarily sign me up for it?  Should Security
come to my cube and drag me off to it?  Should they hire coaches and tutors
to "insure" I pass the tests?  What should they do they aren't doing now?

Think about .18 and .20, which wants the re-instatement of some perqs which
were present years ago: why don't you make it happen?  Go before the 
responsible people, make your case, and if you do a good enough job, you
will get what you want.  Don't just talk about it in here!  Several other
replies talked about how other companies do this because they perceive some
value *to the corporation* in doing so: if it is good for their corporation,
it might be good for Digital, so show the responsible people those facts.

And don't think that this means that they are somehow more powerful than
you, because you have to petition them to get something you want.  Every 
person inside Digital has to petition every other person in order to get
something done.  Ok, sometimes the petitioner has more influence than other
times (ie, do it or you're fired), but every employee can say no.  In my
job I get *lots* of petitioners who want me to do something: Sales Reps
want me to visit their accounts, customers/ISVs/VARs want help, Product
Managers want me to help sell their particular product (often instead of
selling other Digital products), etc.  Sometimes I say yes, sometimes I 
say no.  Does this mean I am more powerful than those other people, or that
I am in some kind of ruling class?  Hardly.  I'm just doing my job, like
every other employee (from line grunts to Bob Palmer) that I know of.

We all have different job responsibilities, we all get paid varying amounts
(and I am sure that what I make would seem wonderful to some and pathetic
to others, and that is true for *every* Digital employee), but we can all
take responsibility for our own futures.  Don't fall into the trap of saying
that "Big Mama/Daddy Digital will take care of me, so I don't have to do it
myself".  That is one-sided, and doesn't fit the compact paradigm at all.

-- Ken Moreau

    I'll have to admit that my .1 was a cheap shot.  We've heard the
    argument before.  However, I wasn't necessarily saying that everybody
    should get raises (though that certainly would be nice).  If the
    money isn't there, the money isn't there.
    
    However - it would be nice (and yes, we've heard this one before too),
    if our leaders would set an example - and demonstrate that they are
    no different from any other hard working employee here - by applying
    a consistent salary policy.  If the salary policy is to freeze wages
    for - what - 3 years or so, then that policy should be applied to all
    employees across the board.
    
    Sorry - but it looks like a special class structure to me.  Is that
    what the new deal is all about?  I'm looking for fairness here - 
    nothing more.
    
    Once you start introducing variable compensation plans, an employee
    begins to be treated as an owner of the company - instead of an
    employee of that company.  If the employee is an owner, the employee
    should be given the opportunity to express what the goals of/for
    compensation should be.  I certainly don't see this in the new deal.
    
    If I wanted to take the risk of being an owner of a company - I would
    go off and join a startup.  That's not what I'm choosing to do.  In
    general, I think that engineers stay with Digital because they
    don't want to take that type of risk.  Most that I have met are not
    comfortable with the idea of variable pay - that's why they don't
    leave to start their own companies.  The model may work very well for
    sales - who are used to taking these types of risks - not engineers.
    
    And what will all of this buy the company?  A work force worried about
    their future and investigating other options rather than concentrating
    on their jobs.  Your point that the employee isn't helpless is well
    taken.  And I fear that the company will suffer for it.
    

    re .21
    
    Hmmm.... lazing off is not an option for *MOST* sales folks.  Doing the
    minimum results in minimum dollars for the lazy individual and his/her
    manager.  As a manager, were I silly enough to be one, I'd not allow
    that to happen twice :-)
    
    MArk

        .21

    Ken, you offered some insightful commentary here concerning the range
    of replies here so far.

    You know what I think is a big problem?  There are so many people
    walking around this place that are having a real hard time trying to
    connect their roles and responsibilities with what this company is now
    and trying to become.  We have completely reengineered this outfit and
    it needed it.  But it feels as if the management team off loaded us
    from the aircraft carrier, went to work inside on the refab. work and
    then piped us all aboard again.  The outside of the hull looks pretty
    much the same and this is good, you want an aircraft carrier looking
    like an aircraft carrier.  But the inside resembles nothing like we
    left.  We are wandering around inside the ship trying to find our way
    again to the things we are comfortable with.  Where's my birth, where's
    the head, where's my unit, where's my station?  

    Now, the officers should be putting up signs and telling everyone where
    to report to.  But they are not.  So, the Fleet Admiral sends a note
    out explaining what the role and purpose of the USS Enterprise is. 
    This is good, hearing about strategy and where we are headed is a very
    valuable thing, sorta' like, "hey everyone the battle is over here and
    we are an aircraft carrier and this is what we do and that's where I'm 
    sailing the ship."

    But, inside down in the bowels of the thing, the crew is struggling with 
    EVERYTHING to make the ship move forward.  Inside propulsion 
    (which is like Engineering and Manufacturing) they struggle with keeping 
    the reactor efficient, under control and running smoothly.  It's not.  
    Inside the ready rooms and on the hangar decks (Sales, Marketing, 
    Logistics, Customer Support) they are scrambling so hard to keep the jets
    flying and full squadrons in the air that they can't even think about the 
    strategic stuff, they just know it's off to battle at 0800.  And up on
    the bridge (Executive Administration, Finance, Human Resources) they
    are having a heck of a time trying to figure out why the whole thing is
    not running smoother.

    You know what I think it is time for?  An honest to God stand down. 
    The military does it fairly often.  They put out the notice that for
    the next 24 hours everyone gets to stand down and we are all going to
    have a big talk together about what needs to be done and what we need
    to work on and improve.  The Navy recently lost 4 F14's at a cost to
    the taxpayers of $150,000,000. not to mention 5 lives.  So they stood
    down the entire fleet of F14's for 3 days.  Every squadron stood down
    and met as a unit and they went over every procedure, every safety
    item, every nut and bolt of every aircraft to make sure things were
    buttoned down tight and "their house" was in order.  We should do the
    same thing.  It's way over due, and it would do more than anything you
    could imagine to bring this outfit together again.  We need it. 
    Management knows it, we all know it deep inside, our customers know it,
    Wall Street knows it, your wife, husbands, kids, cats and dogs know it
    too.

    The time to roll up our sleeves and pull together is now.  Let's get to
    it.

    Mav

    Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw. The slave driver says to the slaves
    rowing the ship furiously:  "The good news is extra rations tomorrow. 
    The bad news is the captain wants to go water skiing tonight."

    Lisa 

    
    
      re -.2
    
      I couldn't disagree more with the 'reengineering'  analogy.
    
      Lots  of stuff has been cut and slashed in the last few years,
    but there has been little, if any, re-engineering in the way
    the remainder of this company actually does business internally...

    Quite. Someone up high once started to "re-engineer the customer value
    chain". A few things started happening. Then it appeared to grind to a
    halt in a mess of vested interests and empires.
    
    This company could wipe the floor with much of the opposition, if all
    of the crew were permitted (and directed) to row in a common direction,
    without unnecessary hindrance.
    
    ttfn
    jw

    
    Uhh... the aircraft carrier thingy......
    
    Good analogy, however... I think the units all know what to do, how to
    do it, what is expected of them. It is not the units that are in
    disarray, but up a couple of levels. We have quite a lot of people
    doing the same thing in different organizations... we should all be
    talking... not at the same time, mind you.
    
    Oar numer 203095.
    Ramming Speed.
    -Mike Z.

    re .26
    
    Al, I agree with you on the reengineering.  We gutted but did little 
    if any thoughtful reengineering. Reengineering begs the fact that the
    conversation about anything you do should usually start with the
    sentence "Why do we do that or it this way?"  We never asked the
    question because when the sub is in a crash dive there is only one
    solution, blow the tanks and hope like hell you can pull it out.  So,
    we blew the tanks out and luckily did not hit bottom to suffer the
    dreaded CBD complex (Crash, Burn, Die).
    
    What I was implying between the lines was that the "reengineering like
    work" which went on inside did not provide what we truly needed at the
    time.  We gutted organizations, processes, and culture, but did not
    engineer their replacements in a simultaneous fashion.  That's why the
    crew is lingering in the hallways searching and yearning for their
    spot, their position on the oar if you will.  Everyone wants to
    contribute but it's more fundamental than that I believe, the
    employees have to be shown and sometimes taught what to do!  It's as if
    the whole thing is some big dysfunctional family right now.  No one can
    figure quite out what's what because they are looking for their station
    in the ship.
    
    The executives in this company better get a firm handle on this or we
    will never get to the next level.  We'll just hum along here as this
    little $14B aircraft carrier hoping like heck that we don't sail into
    harms way!  
    
    Mav

It seems to me that, from a corporate perspective, all employees are now
viewed as virtual "contractors":

1) "classic" contractors get higher pay but no benefits and are cheap to
   get rid of.

2) "employee" contractors get lower pay but standard benefits and are more
   costly to get rid of (but not so much more, anymore).

Beyond that, the corporation exhibits no more interest nor affinity for the
individuals in either category over the other.

No matter which category you're in, if you're lucky you'll work for
management that wants to stroke you, develop you, keep you; if not, you
won't.  The latter is no longer a violation of corporate policy.  There are
still some old development programs running on inertia (internal training,
etc.) and use of these is up to the distributed groups. There's no
corporate view that training and encouraging has any more value than
rent-ya-and-drop-ya as the balance sheet bounces.

Of course, even if the glory days there were a few groups that were the
pits.

Depressing as this sometimes seems, it really means that we've "merely"
sunk to the level where most companies were all along.  But if you say it
that way, where's the license to whine?  :-)

-Mark

    When people have "new deals" to work with it's logical to assume that 
    compensation will direct performance.  For example, if your goal sheet
    (contract or whatever) says you get X$ for selling/making/supporting a 
    fridly, and (X*2)$ for selling/making/supporting a hootly, then someone, 
    somewhere, in management better care more about hootlys.
    
    I'm not sure this is the case.  Quite often I see confused managers.
    
    :-)

    The "new deal" will be in place when the employees can replace the
    word "job" with "career".
    
    my $.02
    dan

    Bravo, Dan!  I couldn't agree more.
    
    M.
    

There is no such thing as pay for performance at Digital. 
Pay for performance means that if everyone in your group is above average, everyone gets
above average increases.
What we do get is if you have an above average performer in your group, you MUST	
have someone below average to compensate for this. The pie is only so large and
you must not spend more that the plan. This is not pay for performance. 
I wish we would stop saying we pay for performance and be honest.
JMHO. RKL

             <<< HUMANE::DISK$SCSI:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 4446.34                 The New Deal at Digital                    34 of 34
STRATA::LAFOREST "RKL"                                8 lines  26-MAR-1996 08:39
                            -< Pay for performance >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as pay for performance at Digital. 
Pay for performance means that if everyone in your group is above average, 
everyone gets above average increases.
What we do get is if you have an above average performer in your group, you MUST
have someone below average to compensate for this. The pie is only so large and
you must not spend more that the plan. This is not pay for performance. 
I wish we would stop saying we pay for performance and be honest.
JMHO. RKL

    
    re .34

    OK, how about we "pay for perceived relative performance".  In theory
    managers pick their best employees and give them the most.  Given that
    definition everyone can not be above average although they may all be
    very component intheir jobs.
    
    Greg
    
    

I agree that the Digital system may be weak at the ends of the bell curve,
but the other part of it is that a group's "pie" is supposed to be
in part based on the success of the group as a whole.  Thus, in theory,
if everyone in a group is a superstar, then that group will get a 
larger pie.

OK.  I said in theory.  I know it often doesn't work out that way.

It is a *WHOLE* lot better than many other places I've been where
the "peanut-butter" principle is used:  Take the pie, and spread it out
as evenly as possible, like peanut butter on a slice of bread, regardless of
anyone's individual performance.  Slackers get just as much as bust-your-butt
go-getters.  That way you don't have to explain to someone why they didn't get
much (or any) raise this year.  It's the cowardly manager's way out.

I'm glad to not have seen much of this at Digital.

Kevin Farlee