Conference 7.286::digital

    Maybe we can use this note to discuss classic principles of management.

    Top management sets a strategy.
    Middle management interprets the strategy and creates tactical plans.
    Individual contributors execute the plans.

    The problem is there is no strategy.  Everything at the top appears to
    be opportunistic or reactive.

    "Macro" and "micro" are meaningless concepts here, except for those
    specific messages regarding trivial expense items which constitute
    "micro-management".

    For the most part, Digital talks Adam Smith and acts Karl Marx.

    The most important power is to spend the companies money (either
    expense or capital) and the discretion of managers to do so has been
    steadily eroded and the non-discretionary expenses directed by
    "corporate" have mushroomed.

    re: -1
    
    >Top management sets a strategy
    >Middle management interprets the strategy and creates tactical plans.
    >Individual contributors execute the plans.
    
    I couldn't agree with you more.  Throughout all the company
    "realignment" discussions & actual changes, there was a consistent 
    theme of "empowerment" & pushing decision making authority downward
    toward the field, and hence closer to the customer.  With the recent
    cost-cutting and restructuring going on, upper management seems to be
    talking out of both sides of its mouth.  
    
    "We want you to feel empowered to do what's right by the customer and
    close business"......"BUT, if you need post-its, you can't buy it.  If
    you need to travel with your customer, you better have a good reason, &
    approval.  If you need a loaner system, forget it."
    
    If management is going to layoff people, I wish they'd do it already and
    get on with business.  If they're going to reorganize, do it and tell
    me what my new job is.  Stop waffling and reacting.  Set a direction,
    give us a strategy, tell us what our roles are, and let's JUST DO IT!
     

    RE: .1
    
  >    For the most part, Digital talks Adam Smith and acts Karl Marx.
    
    Which one was he?  I remember Zeppo and Gummo, but I don't recall a Karl.
    

    
    re .1 ....I agree, whatever you call it Macro/Micro is academic.
    There still needs to be a MESSAGE we can understand with a 'RAISON
    D'ETRE' behind it, and the 'HOW' we are going to do it.
    Something like this would be well received by me:
    
    	1. Strategy message......."Digital is moving into the
    				Nintendo open wristwatch market in FY99.
    
    	2. Why?........"Research shows this is growing at 3 zillion % a
    			week and we are best placed to exploit it from a
    			technology and marketing position.
    
    	3. Who, Where?."Hank E. Panky, Vice president of Not Much Right Now
    			will head up the new group to be based in
    			Lo-Lo-Kost, People's republic of China"
    
    	4. How?........This is the important bit, 1-3 you can say what you
    	   like	its the kind of stuff you feed to the press. Here you need
    	   to say something like "Budgets will be available for re-training
    	   staff who transfer to the Nintendo business units, Product
           development will be based around high performance workgroups
    etc...
    
    With that kind of structured statement you know:
    
    	1. Where the company is going (Nice to know)
    	2. Why we are going there (Nice too)
    	3. How its going to happen (Very important to know)
    	  
    3 is more important than 1 or 2 if you are directly involved as then
    you can say to your boss "hey, what about these work groups, its six
    months since Ken said.....and you haven't even sent me on a course yet"
    (Line managers need to feel pressure from above and below, letting the
     ground troops know the strategy is the best way to keep middle and 
     lowe managers in line)
    
    re. 3 If we're going to "screw up",  Harpo and Zeppo would at least give 
    us a laugh!

    re: .0  Yup, I'm with you -- I'm prepared to trust some GS-50 sitting
    in the Dept. of Commerce in Washington to decide what are the best
    technologies to invest in. Of course, we'll have to raise taxes so the
    federal government can do the investing instead of private industry,
    but if that's what it takes...
    
    As far as Germany & Japan are concerned, you neglect a few points. Like
    for instance having had to spend zip for defense since WWII. Like
    having built a much newer industrial infrastructure since the war
    destroyed their old stuff. Like homogeneous populations with different
    cultural attitudes about unionism, work ethic, company loyalty, etc.
    
    The profit motive is still the best allocator of resources.

    Can't say about Japan, but Germany has spent out a lot on defense as
    part of NATO.
    
    	- andy

    >The profit motive is still the best allocator of resources.
    
    This may be true but who said that our Business leaders are indeed
    motivated to
    a. maximise profit?
    b. allocate resources in the best way possible?
    
    I would argue that they could well aim to produce a level of profit
    that keeps their shareholders happy with them and the point at which
    they can retain their jobs. This may have nothing to do with the most
    optimal point of profit. Resources can then be allocated to projects
    which maximize their goals (i.e to be the head of the number 1 computer
    company when clearly to do this would take the corporation beyond its
    most efficient productivity point) of, say, maximum growth. The fad for
    gobbling up your competitors was often to work yourself into a
    Monopolistic position so you would have to avoid all that competition
    garbage. Most business leaders push for open competition when they are
    late to a market that is controlled by someone else, they just want a
    share of what the incumbants are getting. Of course the name of the
    game is to get through the door and shut it before anyone else can get
    in.		
    
    John (BEc. but generally not admitted to)
    EIC/Eng, Sydney