Conference 7.286::digital

    Hope its true !
    
    

    Doesn't that happen already ?  If you are not making money, you can
    afford only minimal or nil reviews.
    
    John

	Don't we do it already?

	We had only 3% for salary increases last year
	We have the bonus scheme
	We will get 500 quid each this quater if the company reaches specific 
	revenue targets

	Heather (UK)

    US doesn't have a bonus system. (DIdn't know anybody did.)
    
    What were the raises like at the VP level?

	Yep, nothing like another version of Digital's
	decades-old shell game of spreading out the pleasure
	and the pain--regardless of individuals' performnace.

	How'd you like to be part of a group that kicks butt
	and takes names, is profitable, whose product is in
	demand and so forth, and then have 4357 other
	non-profit-making, parasite organizations drag the
	company down....only to be told:

	"Gee, Digital didn't make a profit this year, so, 
	your performance appraisal is a level 4."

	Managers try to do this stuff so they can avoid 
	making the difficult evaluations of, and decisions about
	individual employees.  If "the group" did OK, then
	the managers don't have to worry about the non-performers...
	the ones doing the work are carrying them just fine.

	If "the group" did poorly, then all the managers have
	to do is give everyone a bad evaluation....after all,
	this will stimulate the draft-animals to pull harder
	against the yoke....

	or will it ?

	Steve H

    I know that here in SCO the 2 layers of management below VP 
    have their ratings (and therefore raises) based primarily on
    how well SCO meets its business goals.
    
    You NEED to reward '1' performers in critical positions, and
    keep them happy, or they won't stay. THis is regardless of
    whether the company as a whole is making money.

re .5

	I think you misunderstand


	The 3% was the amount we could afford because thats how well the
	company did.
	So that's all it could pay out.

	The 3% was NOT spread out evenly across the people, the guidelines
	were that the minumum was 10%, so that means many people had 0%, whilst
	good performers had 10% plus.

	You still had the correct performance rating, it just means you could 
	be a 3 and have 0%.

	The bonus, and particularly the potential 500 quid, is in addition to 
	the payrise, and considers that we would not reach these targets 
	unless everyone pulled their weight.

	Heather

    
    
    	Let's look at it this way...
    
    	If the competition is doing better than us ( which they are ) and 
    	they start compensating their employess *significantly* better than 
    	Digital, how long would it take before significant amounts of talent
    	in *key* areas start jumping ship ? 
    
    	I here talk from time to time that this is already happening in 
    	software engineering...

    re .0
    
    Digital has refused to even tie it's salary levels to the rates of
    inflation in the countries in question so as to keep the dollars
    "real", so  why should they index to performance...
    
    q
    
    

    
    Only the people at senior manager, VP or above should tie their
    pay to company performance.  See what happended to GM managers?

    
    
    Based on the May 4th issue of Business week,  Jack Smith received 
    a 10% pay raise last year...  His pay is $609,000
    
    

    RE  .7
    
    Heather
    
    The UK payrise conditions for FY92 is actually:
    
    Minimum  5%
    Maximum  �2500
    
    Therefore, if you earn �50k plus you won't get a payrise - technically. 
    I believe that about 45% of the staff got a payrise, and I've only
    heard of one or two cases where people have got over 7%.  There again,
    considering most of the company DIDN'T get a rise, I'm sure that those
    who did aren't shouting very loudly about it.
    
    Hevs

    	Re: A few back
    
    	"They" seem to realize that this situation exists in software
    engineering, and compensation in software engineering has been geared
    towards keeping pace (as best they can) with industry norms. There are
    still a lot of software engineering jobs out there, albeit not a lot of
    them are here in New England.
    	And I've been seeing a lot of software people leaving the company
    lately anyway...and pay has had little to do with it. Digital has never
    been a software company, but faith that it would become one has kept a
    lot of people here. A lot of people are giving up and going to
    companies committed to software, where software development technology
    is 5+ years ahead of us and growing fast.

    
    Re: .-1
    
    I agreed that top talented SW will leave quiet/sooner than we can
    image. From Usernet, I can see plenty of SW jobs on Westcoast, or
    down N. Carolina, Texas area. Not here though, b'cause all the 
    mini-giant are sliding down-hill.
    
    Back to this topic, I saw from yesterday's U.S.A today stated the
    CEO salary:
    
    IBM John Akers salary  1990 - 3.5 Mil  1991 - 2.86 Mil , and this is
    by IBM have pretty decent latest quarter earning. On the contrary, we
    have big red inks and how our mgt's salary get increase ? You got the
    picture. 
    
    Michael..

re .14:

Yeah, and poor Michael Eisner (CEO of Disney) had his salary cut in half --
from 100M to 50M.

    Uncle Kenny will have to buy back his Pinto..
    Tom Peters said it don`t hurt as much for those that take 10% cut
    of $1,000,000.00 a years as those that take a 10% cut of $40,000.00..
    

re.12:

>I believe that about 45% of the staff got a payrise, 

Where did that information come from? Only about 10% got a rise around here.

/Dave UK CIDCC

re.12:

>I believe that about 45% of the staff got a payrise, 

I believe noone at the SBP site got a raise last year...and that doesn't mean
that there were no high-performers. 

"there isn't a pay freeze, just 0% increases"

    Congradulations...You`re getting 0%..We got zip..0 from zip = ?
    I can`t figure that high those days...What would the tax be on this.??
    Do they have a tax shelter to protect this type of high income.???????
    

    I'm sorry that I don't have the article handy, but the Saturday (4/25)
    issue of the Washington Post listed KO as the 5th most overpaid 
    executive, based on the ratio of his salary to the company's recent
    performance.  He was in some good (?) company, including Lee Iacocca,
    and the chairman of UAL (name slips my mind).
    
    

    The UK Salary bill was allowed to increase by 3% over FY92.  Rather
    than give a flat 3% to everyone, the BoM decided to allocate the money
    to those people who were promoted and to "good achievers".  The minimum
    rise was 5%, so 45% of employees is just an estimation.  A lot of
    employees have said that they would have preferred the flat increase,
    but the company is a "pay for performance" one, so it is a big debate.
    
    As far as I know, each function was given 3% to play with for payrises. 
    How they allocated that among departments I don't know, but to say that
    the whole of Solent Business Park got nothing seems a tad strange.  As
    a Finance person, I would advise you to make a few more enquiries.
    
    So, what are the predictions on the salary bands changing in FY93? 
    They didn't move this year, and I really can't see that they can
    increase them next year.
    
    Hevs

Re: .22

>    the whole of Solent Business Park got nothing seems a tad strange.  As
>    a Finance person, I would advise you to make a few more enquiries.
    
That wouldn't get me anywhere.   If anyone *did* get a salary increase they
wouldn't admit it, not when the vast majority got 0%....


Just as an aside...

..."pay for performance" company...that's a laugh !!!

"pay for performance" only happens in a *very* few select groups.

    
    What is your relationship like with your manager?  Why don't you just
    ask him/her if the whole building was left out on the payrise front,
    and if they were, why?
    
    Hevs

>    What is your relationship like with your manager?  

Ex-manager.  This in my case is normal...10 managers in 6 years (and that was
not by choice).

>   Why don't you just
>    ask him/her if the whole building was left out on the payrise front,
>    and if they were, why?
    
I did.  Answer - 0% payrises for everyone for FY92

Whether this was a misinterpretation of the "guidelines" or not, I don't know...

BTW my review was last July (for August), maybe things relaxed later in the
year. 

...basically I'm caught in the "when hell freezes over" syndrome.

  
  Re .25
  
  Snap !
  
  The more I hear from my current manager [good], the more I believe that
  it was my ex-manager [not good] who screwed the message up completely.
  My review was for July so I suspect that things have got better throughout
  the year (most people learn from their mistakes) but that doesn't really
  help the ones who were the 'teaching materials' ...
  
  All this makes you realise how much your hard work is appreciated and
  encourages you to do even better next year ... 
  
  Frank

    
    After more than 4 years in DEC, I begin to see the light...
    
    It's not how good and effective you are in your job but who you're
    rubbing shoulders with..it's important those people are influential
    and can make an impact with your bosses.
    
    A sure way to loose good people to the competition.
    

>    It's not how good and effective you are in your job but who you're
>    rubbing shoulders with..it's important those people are influential
>    and can make an impact with your bosses.
 
I don't know if I'd go that far, but:

In my long, illustrated career as a software engineer, I've spent about 7.5 years
being a Software Engineer for Digital.  At no point in time during this tenure
has my performance ever been measured in whole or in part by the quality of the
software I produce.

Never, ever.  Lots of stuff goes into my review, and much of it belongs in a
review, and just about all of it's accurate.

Ok, I'll take that back.  In my last review, I got some words to the effect that
I did good code, but that's mostly because I beat the crap out of my manager
until he promised to put it there.

Well, we could talk about a lot of performance things, but I'd have thought that
one of the ways you'd measure a SWE's performance is by the quality of the
software they write.  It was certainly the case at all the places I worked before
DEC.

Just rack it up to my being just a little naive about these things.  Software
quality just isn't the way they grade software engineers (around here at least),
so there's no point in me ever having gotten upset about it.

Message received.

    Uhhmmm.  Perhaps "bad software quality" would get mentioned in a
    review, and "good software quality" is the standard expectation?
    
    I have this bridge for sale.

It should be there, but it's not.  If it were part of an SE's review, then
management would have to figure out how to measure software quality...

They already have a metric to measure "poor" quality.

the more QAR's/SPR's/CLD's you get, the lower the quality must be.

I'm not sure though if not getting any relates directly to "good" quality.

--Scott

re: -1,

> the more QAR's/SPR's/CLD's you get, the lower the quality must be.
> I'm not sure though if not getting any relates directly to "good" quality.

	It doesn't.  On the contrary, it's usually only popular and
    high demand products that get the QAR's/SPR's/CLD's.

    	Case in point: my father in law is retired but keeps extremely
    busy with a carpentry hobby building everything possibly imaginable
    (last fall he helped us side our house as well).  Bob has a saying
    that he reserves for those special momments when someone has a
    complaint about some of his (or his assistant's) work:

	"If you never do nuthin, you never make a mistake."

				  -davo

>	It doesn't.  On the contrary, it's usually only popular and
>    high demand products that get the QAR's/SPR's/CLD's.

No argument.  But the fact that you got one of them *does* indicate a "quality"
problem.

See; it's a metric that might only work against you.  If you get 'em, you
must've done a less then perfect job.  If you don't get 'em, then it must be
because no one's using your product, and you're now a good prospect for
TFSO.   ;-)

I have (in the last year) dealt with QARs/CLDs/SPRs on expectation problems 
(customers expecting features that were never intended to be there, and not
surprisingly turned out not to be there), user error, and because all the
surrounding software changed.

Only in the last category do we see something that's actually broken, but all
three of those categories arguably do not represent poor quality.  They CAN
represent poor quality, but in some of the cases I've worked on, it's just that
someone decided to take something that wasn't a problem and escallate it as high
up the "problem" chain as they could.

I'm not sore about that.  Ultimately, if the customer has a problem, even if
that problem doesn't represent a deficiency or quality problem on our part, it's
just good business sense for us to help the customer out.  Even if that means
that the only person who can answer the question is the person who fixes bugs.

Still, if I was downgraded because my product (the one that I didn't write, but
do support) ended up on the VP's hot list of problems, due to something that was
ultimately an error in the customer's program, I'm not going to be a happy 
camper.

    It's interesting that all the replies to this note are from the
    "grunt's" point of view.  What about management ?  Would it not be
    logical, besides being usefull and, from a business point of view
    efficient, to link management's salary reviews to the business performance 
    of Digital ?  After all, it's management that "owns" the P&L. 
    The "grunts" only contribute to it.
    
    David

           My only comment here is:  Why not get the Salary Review back
           in line with the Performance Review, instead of them being
           180� or so out of phase?
           
           Steve

    
    Re .36:
    
    I made that suggestion to DELTA. it was rejected. If I can find it,
    I'll post the response.
    

    Ah, found it.

    On 07-Dec-1989, I suggested to DELTA that returning to a standard 12-month
    salary review interval would be an all-around win:

     o  predictability would improve employee morale

     o  managers who tended to provide one performance review per salary
        review would be able to follow the PP&P guidelines, which called
        for (and still does) a performance review at least every 12 months

     o  managers who followed the PP&P guidelines would be able to operate
        more efficiently, because they would not have to provide updated
        performance reviews with the out-of-sync salary adjustments

    On 20-Apr-1990, I received a response stating that my suggestion was
    reviewed by corporate compensation people, and that it would not be
    implemented any time soon. The reason was, if an employee is well into
    the appropriate salary range, the only way to maintain proper position
    is to delay the next salary adjustment.

    I rebutted that there is already one perfectly good variable in place
    to accomplish that, the individual adjustment percentage. My rebuttal
    has not yet been addressed.

    Copies of my suggestion and the response are available upon request.

    I feel the response was a large deposit of bovine excrement, and I have
    since been disinclined to champion my ideas through the DELTA process.
    .36 is welcome to pick up the torch.

    ------
    
    Poll: How many of you out there who have been caught in a
    longer-than-12-month salary cycle were informed, without your asking,
    when your next review would occur?

    ------

    (P.S. -- I heard recently that our new PSA will be pushing for 12-month
    performance reviews for everyone, regardless of salary cycles. I don't
    know if this extends beyond my building. I applaud the initiative; I only
    hope that it will eventually demonstrate to management the senselessness
    and waste of a floating salary cycle.)

    ------

    (P.P.S -- If your next performance review comes late in the year (say,
    October) and you've had a really good year (in fact, you get 1's
    and 2's in all individual ratings), but your overall rating is a 3, and
    you don't get a satisfactory explanation; ask if it's because you were
    predicted to be a 3 when the salary planning was done the previous
    November-December. If this review caps an n-year succession of really good
    to exceptional reviews, and you were contemplating the possibility of a
    promotion, but you didn't get one; ask if that's because the potential
    for promotion was not considered when the salary planning was done ten
    months earlier.)

>    implemented any time soon. The reason was, if an employee is well into
>    the appropriate salary range, the only way to maintain proper position
>    is to delay the next salary adjustment.

Perhaps we are all well into the appropriate salary range because the scales 
don't reflect the market conditions...

>    Poll: How many of you out there who have been caught in a
>    longer-than-12-month salary cycle were informed, without your asking,
>    when your next review would occur?

Don't remember about salary reviews, I think I've had two (coincided with 
PA's), plus one as the result of a promotion where they had to bring me up.  I
think tomorrow will be my third PA at 56 months, 25 days.  Never had much
notice prior to any review, just, "Send me info, you're due." 

>    (P.P.S -- If your next performance review comes late in the year (say,
>    October) and you've had a really good year (in fact, you get 1's

You mean May-June don't you.  The fiscal year runs July-June.  I find your 
point very intriguing.

>You mean May-June don't you.  The fiscal year runs July-June.  I find your 
>point very intriguing.
    
    No, he means October.  All salary planning is done in November for the
    next fiscal year.
    
    Bob

    
    .40 is correct.
    

.40 is not quite correct.

	Salary planning for the following CALENDAR year is done in November.

-Terry

    Digital won't give up 15-month salary reviews easily; the company has
    found an easy way to decrease the effective size of increases -- this
    way, Digital can give n% raises that are really less than .8*n% per
    year.  Thus a nominal 4% raise every 15 months is less than 3.2% per
    year; 6% is less than 4.8%; 8% is less than 6.4%, et cetera.
    
    Aside from the low morale induced by Digital putting the screws to its
    employees like this, this system also introduces problems through
    synchronization.  Each cost center's salary plan covers a twelve-month
    period, so an employee's salary change is planned in advance, and their
    current performance will not be factored in until their NEXT salary
    review after the current planning year -- so an employee's current
    performance might not affect their salary until TWENTY-SEVEN MONTHS
    later.  More than two years is too long to wait for
    pay-for-performance.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re last
    
    Not quite accurate.....
    
    You submit the proposed increases sometime around Dec...Jan...
    
    BUT....they can be changed up or down if an employee's performance 
    has changed one way or another.
    
    Of course, if you enter the plan in Jan...then in February try changing
    the plan, you better be able to justify why you had a mind set change
    in one month.
    
    
    Lou

    Changing a salary plan downward is easy.  Increasing one is very
    difficult (impossible in some organizations).
    
    I speak from experience.

What does "well into" a salary range mean?  Salary ranges at DEC are very wide.
Last I checked, the top of the salary range for my position was about 1.8
times the bottom.  I'd be happy if I were "well into" my salary range by
my definition.  I suspect I'm "well into" it by Corporate Compensation's
definition.

    15 months? I'm not aware of a single Desktop Services Engineer in the
    South Central Area that has received a salary or performance review
    before the 24th month. Management here apparently looked at the "15-24
    month" guideline and decided that putting everyone on a 24 month
    schedule would save both time and money. It's great for employee morale
    too. :-(
    
    Harry
    

    
    I had this process explained to me once....it was so convoluted I may
    not get all the details correct.  First, there were I believe three
    factors that figured into how long between your salary reviews.  What
    you previous rating was, where you were on the salary range, and the
    "recommended period" between reviews.  What I found extremely
    interesting was the statement that if you were a 2 performer at the low
    end of the scale, your time was shorter between reviews...same held
    true for a 3.  If you were at the top end of the scale, it was longer. 
    Yet, you could be at the top end of the scale and a 2 and have a
    shorter review cycle.  It made very little sense.
    
    And I have never been told when my next review is.  I've always had to
    ask.
    

Re: .45

If the next level of management and personnel are worth their salt, they will 
question either an increase OR decrease in someone's planned salary adjustment,
especially if its within months of when the plan was done.
It makes sense and I have seen it happen.

Jim

    RE:  49
    
   .49 If the next level of management and personnel are worth their salt,
    
       I rest my case
    

    
    While we're in this rathole...
    
    Anybody know what the corporate average salary adjustment was when
    salary planning was done last Nov (1991)?
    

    According to Personnel your reviews are "supposed" to be done yearly. 
    This will be reflected on your EDCF down at the bottom somewhere.  Now
    your salary action planned is another story.  That is up to the cost
    center manager and those who have financial budget input.  However, you
    DO NOT have to know this information.  That is something only your
    manager needs to know and they DO NOT have to tell you.  They don't
    even have to tell you IF you are getting a raise this year.  However,
    if they do tell you and change their minds, IT'S OK!  Management will
    just deny it and a "change of plan" form will be filed, but you won't
    get any information from either your manager or personnel.
    
    -sandy (who speaks from experience)
    

>    According to Personnel your reviews are "supposed" to be done yearly. 


Several years ago, in a different office, I went to personnel to complain 
that I was not getting yearly reviews and pointed out in the P&P where it
said reviews were to be yearly.  I was told that the P&P statement on reviews
was subject to unit manager interpretation.

I'm not sure if "supposed" in this case is subject to interpretation or not.

al
    

    
    When they're to managements advantage, "We're bound by PP&P."
    
    When they're not, "PP&P are just guidelines."
    
    This only gets interesting when the two positions are cited in
    the same conversation.
    

	re .54:

>    When they're to managements advantage, "We're bound by PP&P."
>    
>    When they're not, "PP&P are just guidelines."
>    
>    This only gets interesting when the two positions are cited in
>    the same conversation.


	Why should it be specially interesting? There's no confusion
	here. Which rule applies in a given case is a matter for
	management interpretation. 8-)

	/Tom

    I've worked for Digital for five years now and I have had a job and
    salary review every year.  I started on September 7 and had my first
    pay increase in September the following year.  I then changed jobs the
    following July (promoted with extra money), and my review date changed
    to July.  The year after that I was promoted again and my review date
    changed to January.  I have ALWAYS had my job review a few months
    before my pay review date, and pay adjusted accordingly in the right
    month.
    
    I have worked for four different managers and in two different 
    functions, so I have assumed that annual reviews were standard, but
    maybe I've just been lucky.
    
    hevs

    
    ...anybody got an answer to .51??
    

    I think it was 4.5%.

    I forgot to add that this did vary by type of position (ie. clerical,
    manergial, technical, etc.)    I don't recall the breakdown and don't
    feel it appropriate to break it out here anyway.

It sounds to me like in the P+P guideline, the word "supposed" is not
up to mgmt interpretation.  However, the word Year is.  If your manager
follows the Julian Calendar instead of the Gregorian Calendar the year may be 
a different length.

:-)

    
    Ah-ha! Then, if you assume that some managers have chosen to use the
    Martian or Jovian calendar... why, it all starts to fall into place!!
    

    .61:
    
    Pluto is near perihelion...
    
    Dick

>        -< By the time the paperwork is done, it'll be skiing season >-

           Speaking of skiing season... it's here again and so is Salary
           Planning season... Dec or Jan.  They've changed things again
           to quarterly "actions", whatever that means...
           
           Hey, I think they make this thing so complicated to keep the
           DECaucrats busy and job security.  Same as keeping the IRS
           code so complicated.  Just force the reviews to be at the same
           time & everything else will be worked out.  IRS- Just tax
           everyone at 10% (or whatever the current taxes divided by
           income turns out to be) and everything will work out.  
           KISS!  Keep It Simple Stupid!
           
           S�