Conference 7.286::digital

        In the process of collecting this list, several people have
        contacted me to express support but at the same time say that
        they don't want their name on the list.  In some cases it is
        because they are in a good group and respect their local
        management and don't want their name on something that could be
        considered as a slur on their management.  While not everyone
        agrees with this reasoning, this is a good reason to not have
        your name on the list.  I fully support the decision these
        people make and thank them for the support they provide.

        But there are other people who make me worry.  Some people will
        not give their support because they are afraid.  Some call me on
        the telephone and don't give their names.  This speaks badly
        about Digital.  It says that there are serious management
        problems within Digital (although the problems are probably
        unintentional in many situations).  I don't blame these
        people--I thank them for their support and hope that managers
        all over Digital will work to encourage their subordinates to
        not be afraid to speak their minds.

        I'm glad some people are willing to provide me with their name
        and badge numbers for the list.  I thought long and hard about
        the potential problems before my public offer to collect names,
        and I hope these people also considered the consequences before
        sending their badge numbers.

        Some people have suggested that posting the number of responses
        I have received will encourage people to join the list.  I don't
        want to encourage people, I want people to decide for themselves
        rather than jumping on the bandwagon.  However, I will make a
        suggestion for people concerned about sticking out:  Take a look
        at the responses to 1223.0.  Many people have already made
        solitaire public statements that they agree with Paul.

        Other people have written to say they want to see the memo I
        plan to send to Jack Smith before their name goes on the list. 
        This is a reasonable request and I should have thought of this
        before I posted 1229.0.  Below is the text I plan to use.

	Thank you for your support.
						B.J.

================================================================================

						FROM: B.J. Herbison
						ENET: ULTRA::HERBISON
						DATE: ??????
						LOC:  BXB 1-2/D04
						DTN:  293-5052

	TO: Jack Smith

        On 5 October 1990 Paul Kinzelman sent you a memo (reproduced
        below) that discussed management restructuring.

        This memo captures the concerns of the Digital employees listed
        below.  We feel that the problems and suggestions described in
        the memo need to be addressed and considered throughout Digital.

        The people on this list are in general agreement with the
        content of Paul's memo, but not everyone agrees with everything
        stated in the memo.  The presence of a name on this list does
        not mean that person is having problems with their management,
        it only means that the employee is aware of some problems that
        exist and is concerned about the future of Digital.

        We look forward to a response to this memo.

						Sincerely,
						B.J.

================================================================================

>        But there are other people who make me worry.  Some people will
>        not give their support because they are afraid.  Some call me on
>        the telephone and don't give their names.  This speaks badly
>        about Digital.  It says that there are serious management
>        problems within Digital (although the problems are probably
>        unintentional in many situations).  I don't blame these
>        people--I thank them for their support and hope that managers
>        all over Digital will work to encourage their subordinates to
>        not be afraid to speak their minds.

    Any type of retribution or harassment from management for having
    their name/badge on this list would be symptomatic of some of the
    very problems that are being spoken of.
    
    Those managers with frail egos need to look at Paul K's memo, BJ
    Herbison's efforts and all of those that are in agreement for what
    they are- CONCERNED AND CARING EMPLOYEES THAT WANT TO SEE DEC
    PROSPER AND CONTINUE TO BE A GREAT PLACE TO WORK. WE WANT TO SEE
    THESE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN A FRANK AND HONEST MANNER. TO DO SO WOULD
    HELP INSTILL CONFIDENCE AND TRUST WITHIN MANY EMPLOYEES.
    
    If we can't voice our opinion about these serious matters without
    fear then these are dark times indeed. From what I saw and heard on
    the recent DVN broadcast I have to believe that an honest and
    sincere reply to Paul K.'s memo will be forthcoming from Mr. Smith.
    
    Lee

I don't want to rain on your parade but it is obvious to me why people
are afraid to sign such a memo:  It basically says the managers in this
company suck.  We can argue about the truth of this premise, however
almost everyone in this company has a manager.   I think you would be
hard pressed to find manager who would not be upset to see one of his
employees names attached to such a note since the obvious implication
would be "My manager is incompetent". 

I don't think my current manager sucks but I do know a lot of lousy
managers in this company.  However, if I were to sign such a letter and
my current manager were to see it he would have to be a candidate for
sainthood not to be disturbed by it.  That's right Pete, I signed this
thing but I didn't mean you...yeah that's the ticket. 

It's one thing for an old timer who maybe knows JS and can talk about
how things have changed for the worse to talk about such generalities.
Also, if JS were to ask someone, maybe out in the field, "What's your opinion
on how things are going?" then maybe some one-to-one honesty is in order.

I don't think a petition is a good idea.  No matter how well intentioned
such a thing is just think of the bad publicity Digital could receive in
the press: 1000 Digital Employees Sign Letter in Protest of Digital
Management.  

Also, I should point out that although it may seem like a good idea for
JS to participate in files like this, active participation could:

1) Undercut the management of this company
2) Provide material that could appear in trade rags (Note that Spencer's
column last week seemed to have a 3rd hand version of some discussions
that took place here.)

I think it is very likely that JS and KO read this file or extracts of
it.  They may even call up various assorted people in this company for
their opinions and not tell everybody.

John

    re: .3
    
    I think ``1000 Digital Employees Sign Letter in Protest of Digital
    Management'' would be a good headline.  The fact that our stock is
    selling for less than "book value" means that investors think the
    company is worth less than the sum of its parts, or in other words
    that our management (taken as a whole) has negative value.
    
    Perhaps such a headline would raise our stock price!
        John Sauter

B.J.

I've thought long and hard before responding.

I have two comments.

1. The concern raised in .3 about the external impact of the "petition" being 
   publicized seems like a valid one. 

   I can imagine existing long-standing customers being totally unsurprised,
   but it would scare the living daylights out of many who were considering 
   becoming customers, and of recent customers, and of less "savvy" customers. 

   The business impact could be dreadful: for that reason, and that reason
   alone, I can't be a party to this, and won't put my name on the list. 

   Could anyone advise B.J. of a secure channel for getting this to Jack
   such that it wouldn't reach the press? 
   

2. If you decide to go ahead, I humbly suggest that you include a reference
   in your cover memo to the signatories' concern relating to the erosion 
   of Digital's core values.

   In many ways, this is the underlying theme of most of this NOTES file. 

   My read of the NOTES is that we've moved steadily, from a trickle 
   of offenders against the culture, to a flood, and that we're looking to Ken 
   and Jack - as two of the originators of the culture - to act as it's 
   guardians.  Armed with our suggestions and examples, of course. 

   I heard Jack say in the DVN that managers should listen to their people,
   and "The day managers stop people from saying what they think is in the 
   company's best interests, it's the death of the company" (an approximate 
   quote - not an exact one). 

   I think he'd want to know that the gangrene has already taken hold. 

Best,
     Martin                 

    I'm afraid customer confidence in Digital has been shaken already,
    for all three of the obvious reasons: profitability, sales, and
    quality of product (although there is not yet much talk about this
    in the trade press). If people want to "make a stand" then a petition
    is in order. But my own experience in political matters is that
    petitions are not as successful in convincing people as are floods
    of private, personal mail.
    
    So in addition to the petition I would encourage people to send
    mail to Jack Smith via SONATA::IDEASCENTRAL. Since the job of
    the people who receive that mail is to act on new ideas for the
    Corporation, the mail should have as its focus a constructive
    suggestion for improving Digital management (or process, or products).
    There are a lot of good people and good ideas out there. "Please
    send him all your cards and letters, you people out in videoland".
    Paul started the process, and I made some concrete suggestions for
    quality/management measurement. Let's see some creativity from
    you - some of the most creative and articulate people in the world!
    
    						Regards
    						Jon Campbell

        There is an interesting series of events that is starting to take
        place more and more within DEC and this paticular note is a prime
        example of it -
        
        Decisions within DEC are generally made through consensus.  As of
        late the decisions have not been forthcoming or are becoming more
        unacceptable.
        
        This leads to decisions through anarchy.  In a more acceptable
        term this is what we fondly refer to as the internal champion who
        leads a cause, but confusion still runs rampant.
        
        The final stage is decisions through the democratic process.  The
        internal champion becomes the leader and the other vote on it.
        Only at this point does a semblance of order return.
        
        I submit that we are in anarchy now and trying to move to a stage
        of democratic process in order to have the management understand
        that Customer Satisfaction should be our number one goal and
        measure.
        
        I also submit that the majority of the management in DEC is still
        at the end of the consensus stage, but do not understand the
        anarchy decison making process.  By their very nature, they
        cannot, for they have learned to go along with a flow that no
        longer exists.  Thus they cannot move forward without direction.
        That direction needs to come from decisions.
        
        Bob

No question in my mind that there's a problem with direction, but I'm not sure
if the problem is that nobody's figured it out, or someone has but hasn't
communicated it properly.

I also don't think that there's any question that one of our most important
desires is complete customer satisfaction, and you don't get there without
quality of product, etc.  Establishing a goal of customer satisfaction is like
saying to head "somewhere over there", whereas establishing meaningful interim
steps allows you to say "go east 17 miles, then SSE, ...".

But airing our dirty laundry in public will be disastrous, both to the firm and
to its morale.  If your management isn't listening, find someone who will:
there are plenty of us managers out there who care equally about the health of
the company *and* the satisfaction of our people.  I make it a point to say
"you don't work for me; I work for you.  If you need something, I'll get it. 
If you itch, I'll scratch it.  If you have a message, I'll deliver it."  I have
always felt that if we take care of our people, and have a good business plan,
the business will take care of itself.

The onslaught of ideas_central sounded like a viable path and you should assume
it will work until you have reason to believe it won't.

Better yet, why don't you go see Jack, or Ken?

Pete

    1229.7 is right, but for the wrong reason.

    The right reason is that decision-making in Digital has broken down
    because of uncertainty about lots of things that ought to be certain.

    These things that ought to be certain, at least for 12 months, are
    headcount, internal equipment availability, ability to hire, charter
    (ie the general goals of group), ability to "invest": third party
    support, attendance at industry events, etc.

    Every meeting I attend starts off with what was changed by "corporate".
    I can deal with decisions made without "consensus" or even decisions
    that are to quote .7 "unacceptable", as long as decisions don't get
    made, reversed, and unmade, two, three, four times each week.

    Uncertainty/chaos/change are supposed to be the _external_ stuff we
    can't control (ie the business cycle, customers, competitors).

    What we have here, friends, is a "decentralization" rhetoric, ie "Read
    me lips: YOU ARE EMPOWERED" matched to actions that are nothing less
    than micro-management.

    If by management by consensus, do you mean that people who knew the
    issues could make final and binding decisions without worrying about a
    higher-level manager reversing them behind closed doors, I think the
    process broke down years ago.

    What Digital needs now is a end of the this sorry phase that commenced
    in April 1989.  We need a little internal stability before we can
    confront IBM, HP, and SUN.
                              

    From Charles Handy's "The Age of Unreason"
    
    "Major change in organizations seems to follow a predictable and sad
    sequence:
    
    FRIGHT		- the possibility of bankrupcy, takeover or collapse
    
    NEW FACES		- new people are brought in at the top
    
    NEW QUESTIONS	- questions, study groups, investigations into the
    			  old ways and new options
    
    NEW STRUCTURES	- the existing pattern is broken up and re-arranged
    			  to give new talent scope and break up old clubs
    
    NEW GOALS &		- the new organization sets itself new aims and
    STANDARDS		  targets"

    re: .9
    
    I agree wholeheartedly with your observation that we can live with a
    lot of decisions if only they wouldn't get made/unmade 3-4 times.
    
    Evidence, the Jack Smith decision on "no more reimbursement for mileage
    within 25 miles of your assigned work place." A bunch of employees
    mumble, and the next thing you know, the decision is rescinded.
    
    I'm not agreeing that Jack's decision to write the orignal memo was
    right. In fact, I would agree with the mumblers, that it wasn't a great
    move. But as a Senior VP, he had every right to say, "I made a
    decision, and dammit, you guys are going to abide by it, period, end."
    
    We might not like the decision, and some of us may not like the fact
    that our mumbling did no good, but at least we would know WHO's IN
    CHARGE!! 
    
    /se
    
    

    re: .11
    
    I think you chose a poor example.  I don't remember exactly what he
    said on the DVN, but I got the impression that Jack Smith was informed
    that there were legal problems with the policy.  In any case, sticking
    to a bad decision just to prove you're "in charge" doesn't strike me
    as good management technique.
    
    re: .10
    
    Digital is getting old enough as a corporation that the steps you
    outlined may be just what we need.
        John Sauter

    re: -1
    
    >I think you chose a poor example.
    
    Yes, John, you're right, I probably did. But I trust you'll agree that
    we flip-flop too much on major decisions. 
    
    Maybe this is a better example; 
    
    	"Maybe we should close all the ACTs. They cost a lot of money."
    	(days/weeks go by)
    
    	"No don't touch them, the field needs them to sell."
    	(days/weeks go by)
    
    	"Maybe we should close some of them."
    	"I thought we already decided not to close them."
    	(days/weeks go by)
    	
    	"Close this one and that one."
    	"OK"
    	(Screaming from the local field)
    
    	"We're not closing those, the field is upset."
    
    On and on and on. It happens because there is no one single person in
    the high levels of the company who will evaluate all the pros and cons
    of a given situation,  and who will take responsibility for the
    decision he or she makes (good or bad).
    
    I think the only people who make real decisions are at the individual
    contributor level, and maybe one to two levels beyond that. Once you
    get into higher levels of management it's all management by politics.
    
    Is that better?
    
    /se
    

    I have a story about the "$10,000" decision.  A small company can pull
    all the people into a room and work out a final $10,000 decision.
    
    In Digital, you get the individual contributors and their managers in a
    room.  But a decision that really commits Digital, really has an
    element of risk, gets bounced two, three, levels up where the
    all-important Digital inter-personal network takes over.  Real decision
    makers are effectively isolated from the people who know what the
    business (ie non-organizational) issues are.  That's gotta be
    frustrating for them.  We even use the language of politics (ie lobby)
    as opposed to the language of problem solving when we talk about
    decision making at Digital.
    
    But it explains why so many, many important decisions are made to
    facilitate organizational agendas where any side effect that creates a
    product or develops a third party relationship happens more by accident
    than by design.

    re: .13---Yes, much better.
        John Sauter

    
    I believe there is a critical lack -- for reasoning, see note 1208.69
    

    While out "on the road" earlier this week, I heard a joke that might be
    applicable:
    
    		What's the difference between Digital and The Boy Scouts?  
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    		The Boy Scouts have adult leadership!!!
    

RE: .13, .15

For another couple of examples, look at:

(1) the entire history of the PRISM development effort (eventually cancelled)

(2) the System V vs. bsd vs. OSF/1 kernel code base for ULTRIX controversy
    (this month's final deicison is OSF/1.  Since we announced that publicly,
    it stands a chance of actually sticking.)

--PSW

Re .10:

"
    "Major change in organizations seems to follow a predictable and sad
    sequence:

    FRIGHT		- the possibility of bankrupcy, takeover or collapse

    NEW FACES		- new people are brought in at the top

    NEW QUESTIONS	- questions, study groups, investigations into the
    			  old ways and new options

    NEW STRUCTURES	- the existing pattern is broken up and re-arranged
    			  to give new talent scope and break up old clubs

    NEW GOALS &		- the new organization sets itself new aims and
    STANDARDS		  targets"
"

Some people know these 5 phases better under the names Chaos, Discord,
Confusion, Bureaucracy and Aftermath.
				/AHM