Conference 7.286::digital

    Paul, good luck in whatever endeavor you choose.  A couple of points
    from an old veteran of the computer industry:
    	Don't expect it to be different at your next corporation.
    	Digital, on balance, is an excellent company to work for.
    	Don't take your notes with you.  You will be viewed as a trouble
    		maker.
    CW

    I believe Paul has found employment with a company that values "trouble
    makers."  Trouble making and innovation go hand in hand, IMO.  During
    the recent DCU BoD elections, Paul got the most votes from shareholders
    and, I assume, will serve three more years on the DCU BoD.  During the 
    past year he has served on the DCU BoD and has been responsible for much 
    of the direct reporting and contact with members through DCU notes.  For 
    those that aren't aware, Paul spearheaded the no-smoking policy at Digital.
    
    If there is anyone who has become experienced at making positive
    changes at Digital, it's Paul.  He has been a focal point for positive
    change and building a sense of teamwork.  If Paul says that upper
    levels of management are in trouble (to grossly oversimplify his
    message), I believe it.  I can think of none other that would be more 
    qualified for such an assessment.  
    
    Paul's advice is not theory.  It is based on personal experience that I 
    have seen proven in action.  I consider myself fortunate to have 
    participated with Paul in what little I have had opportunity for.
    
    For those who don't yet realize it, this is a major, major loss for
    Digital.  And, no, as I understand it Paul isn't being TFSO'd.
    
    Steve

    
    Paul,
    I have always appreciated your notes and usually agreed with them.
    I still do.
    Thank you for all your hard work on our behalf.
    The best of luck!
    
    Kind regards,
    
    Mike Parise
    

    Re.:  .2, no, No, NO, 1000X NO, Paul is not only NOT being TFSO'd, he
    is leaving, "voluntarily", WITHOUT ANY compensation for all of his years
    of hard work and exemplary dedication to Digital and it's employees.  I
    put "voluntarily" in quotes, because while he is leaving of his own
    choice, Paul did not want to leave Digital, but, sadly, he felt he had
    no choice, he no longer felt that he could make a positive difference,
    and that was very important to his quality of worklife, was to be able
    to influence positively the journey of this company, and its people. 
    Digital, we, it's remaining employees are the losers, BIG time, as
    Paul, Dick Joseph, and others who tried so hard to get some management
    focus on employee morale issues, leave with cases of terminal
    frustration.  Don't know whose left to pick up the banner...
    
    Paul, I've written to your personally.  In public I say only, "thank
    you", for being who you are, for being my friend, for showing the way.
    
    Have fun!  :^)  

    We have lost a great person in Paul. I only had the pleasure of
    meeting Paul once, at a non DEC function, but am sure glad that
    I did. I hope our paths cross in the future. 
    
    Good luck is not needed, Paul succeeds in every endevour he elects.
    
    Jim C.
    

    
    Wishing you much happiness on your continuing life's journey, Paul.
    I admire your integrity and courage, and would have enjoyed working
    with you.
    
    Take care.
    Carole

    Paul, I didn't know that you spearheaded the "no smoking" policy.  For
    that alone, my lungs, my sinuses, my stomach, my head and I thank you.  
    I am seriously allergic to cigarette smoke and suffered from day-long
    headeaches and nausea for years until that change was made.
    
    I thank you also for the changes you made at the DCU.
    
    Good luck and travel well on your new path.  I'm sure your new company
    will benefit from your presence.
    
    mary

    I have had the privilege of working closely with Paul Kinzelman on
    last years successful campaign to oust the old DCUs board of directors
    (who all also happened to be high level Digital managers). Paul, as you
    may have noticed worked tirelessly over the last year in successfully
    increasing communication to the DCU membership. DCU turned around due
    to Paul's efforts as well as all the other new DCU directors. There has
    been a real partnership between management and the DCU board. And as
    you may noticed Paul got the HIGHEST number of votes in this years DCU
    elections.
    
    As Paul has said he has spent time trying to help in the turnaround at
    Digital but has been rebuffed at every juncture. Yes he managed through
    shear obstinance to get a few meetings but when smoked out these people
    absolutely refused to even let him be part of the solution of
    rebuilding employee morale and not just shaking up the birdcage but
    actually making a difference. Fancy telling someone that they wouldn't
    be considered for the "ethics job" because they didn't trust
    management. It was "trusting" management that caused the old DCU board
    to totally cock up the DCU. That sort of job needs a healthy dose of
    skepticism.
    
    And this from an employee that has demonstrated excellent achievements
    in his real work at Digital over the time he has been here. And that's
    what really peeved all the bureaucrats. Vouldn't put him down as a poor
    performer.
    
    I can hear it now in the corridors of bureaucratic power:
    
    	"Hey did you hear that troublemaker Kinzelman has resigned? Good
         thing too he asked too many hard questions, things will be easier
         now. Now about bonuses for all us brown nosers, what do you
         reckon $50,000 each this year? Also we need to invent some more
    	 policies to make people get approvals they don't need, it'll
    	 make us look more important and keep us in a job"
    
    This is Digital's loss and not for lack of trying on Paul's part.
    
    Good luck Paul, your new company will appreciate you. Just as I'm sure
    George Van Treek's new company is appreciating him. Two people who
    the power structure just labeled as trouble makers. Not realizing that
    an organization needs trouble makers (ie visionary movers and shakers)
    as much as, and actually more than it needs polished bureaucrats.
    
    Dave
               

    I've worked on four (4) other corporations, including DEC.
    Sadly to said, that non-for-profit, profit, public and private
    the 'sins' that Paul mention to all of us here, are true, similar
    or alike in all the ones I already mentioned.
    
    For me that is one of the KEY problems with our (AMERICA) management
    structure.   When you pass that door to high level manager, something
    strange must happen, that all of a sudden, the 'lower level ' (worker
    bees as Paul called us) employees are "not important" anymore.   In 
    fact, if you speak-out, you are considered to be a "trouble-maker"
    (just like Paul).
    
    The truth about this is we are not going to lead the Business World
    again, if this trend continues.   So the real question is, why are
    we leaving folks like Paul, be the lone rangers ?   The answer is
    ours !!!

Geeze, sounds like a eulogy and I"m not dead yet! :-)
Thanks guys...

More importantly, keep speaking up. I'm nobody special. Anybody else in
this thread could also do what I've done. And there is safety in
numbers. Don't let the bureaucrats be able to think that now that I'm
gone they can continue business as usual.

    
    Thank you so much for all of your hard work, Paul.
    
    Earlier today I was thinking how nice it was not to have 
    cigarette smoke in my work environment anymore, and now
    find that you had much to do with that.  For this you 
    will always have my gratitude...along with your DCU efforts.
    
    Much appreciated!  
    
    Cindy

    Paul,
     Saw you around the corridors of the mill for many years. Only talked
    with you briefly at a table in the mill over the inital DCU petition.
    Good Luck, you will be missed. 
    
    Where are you going?
    
    Marc H.

In colloquial terms of the industry vernacular, what we see is a "brain drain."
If the economy were a bit more robust, and local business remains the same,
the exodus might reach TSFO targets through attrition alone.

I did not know you, Paul, but good luck.

Mark Metcalfe

Going to Tandem in Cupertino, CA

    
    i dont know you too paul but good luck to you in califronia.
    
    any one who helps in getting us more smoke free place for DECeees is a 
    good dude in my book.
    
    \bye!
    \nasser

This reply is being entered on behalf of a noter who wishes to remain annoymous.
Send mail to ROWLET::AINSLEY if you wish to communicate with the author.  Unless
your specify otherwise, your identity will be passed on to the author.

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

   Paul,

  You do not know me, but I feel that I DO know you. I have followed some 
of your messages to 'management' over the past few years with deep 
admiration and support, because I am unable to recall a single point that I 
have had any real disagreement with!

  I will mark 13 years with Digital in July , (if I last that long..) 
and in the environment where I work, xxxxxxx, the ethics and integrity 
issues are even more obvious than they are in Engineering. I have seen more 
'double standards' here than I can even try to remember. I have had ONE 
promotion since I began in Digital back in 1980. I am completely aware of 
why this has happened, and accept it as part of the way I am. I CANNOT 
pretend that things that I see are not really there, and I have been 
incapable of telling significant lies ever since my Dad showed me the 
stupidity of lieing when I was 3-4 years old. Yet I have to cope with scams
, political maneuvering and blatant dishonesty almost every day...and I 
speak up to my management, which has me on the "no promotion" list 
permanently. My reveiws have always been '2', and I have consistently 
carried the heaviest and most complex workload in every job that I have 
held at Digital. Example: After the monthly reports went in, I asked my 
immediate Manager, (who, by the way, is one FINE manager...maybe 
the best one I've ever worked for...been with Digital for MANY years..)
"xxxxxx, what was the 'number' for the group for January?" xxxxx replied: 
"Right around 45 million.."  There are 35 individials in the 
department...my 'piece' of the 45 million was 22.5 million.. I'm not trying 
to 'blow my horn' here, but wanted to illustrate that what you say and have 
learned is confirmed once again in me...hard work, dedication, ethics, 
integrity..are MEANINGLESS with the pseudo-expert managers that we are 
saddled with in many places.

   In 1980, when I came to Digital from Honeywell, it was like a breath of 
fresh air! Honeywell's management style was similar to what we have today 
in Digital, and it had a terrible reputation even then. I was amazed to 
find managers who KNEW the job and who actually cared about the well being 
and success of their reports. It was a culture shock, to be sure, but one 
that was enlightening and refreshing. People approached problems with 
enthusiasm, cooperation and resolve, and the problems got solved. I 
reported to my Manager....he reported to the Vice President of 
the group. Today, I report to zzzzzz xxxxx, who is great but who has to report 
through SEVEN MORE LAYERS of political appointees who are almost unable to 
spell the job name, let alone understand it. xxxxx's direct report is an 
accountant, who reports to a logistics person, who reports to a personnel 
individual, who reports to a finance person, ad nauseum. To get anything 
accomplished that requires management approval is not only impossible, it's 
so distasteful that most people who want to accomplish anything simply 
work around them, which isn't the best way either.

  Are things improving?? Like you, I believe that they are not! I see no 
positive changes in xxxxxxx, only 'changes for the sake of change'. We 
keep getting systems and procedures thrust upon us that are obviously 
things that have never been tested nor anyone who has had any practical 
experience has ever had any. We've been directed to use systems with 
technology that was obsolete in the late '70's, and when I complained about 
it, I was told that I need to "use the system to increase my productivity".
When I pointed out the fact that I was currently doing 5 times what the 
other individuals were, and that the system would CUT my productivity by 
around 50%, I was immediately considered 'uncooperative'.

  I could go on for forty pages, but that was not my primary purpose for 
sending this note. I am dismayed and saddened by your departure, because 
you were one rare and shining beacon for those of us who were terrified to 
carry our messages to the level that you have. Your courage, integrity and 
honesty will be missed by those of us 'worker bees' who are left. I want to 
personally wish you the very best in whatever endeavor you pursue in the 
future, and thank you for the many attempts that you have made to help us 
and Digital to be a success..


    Thanks..and may you prosper.....

    Name withheld out of simple fear

Say you've just been burned by someone high in the company, and the
people you thought would support and defend you tested the flames and
then got out of the way and let it happen.  Once you are done licking 
your wounds, what do you do?  

You could forget about it, or leave the company.  Or you could find a 
a person who isn't afraid of flames, to back you up and clear away 
obstacles so that you can try to get your problem solved.  Paul Kinzelman 
was one of those people for me, and for many others.  Paul's no miracle
worker -- if there's no will in the company to solve a problem, then 
even Paul cannot get it fixed.  But many battles were won, and even
those that weren't (or at least not yet) were worth fighting.

The best way to repay our debt to Paul is to do for others what he did 
for us.  That is to stand up for fairness and integrity whenever possible,
and never let expedience guide our judgement of what ethical behavior is.

Paul, you're going to be sorely missed.  It was a great honor to work with
you to reform the DCU, and I'll always carry with me the lessons that I
learned from it about the costs and rewards of standing up for integrity.
I learned with you and others that I can do more than I ever thought I
could.  This lesson will help me throughout my life, wherever I go.

I wish you all the best.  And yes, this sounds like a eulogy, because
we all truly hope that you're departing us for a better world!  

	Larry

    
    Good luck Paul...and THANKS!!!!
    
    You will be missed.
    
    
    
    Neil Wallace
    Colorado CSC

Hey Paul...

I still remember a quote from you back when I was a dweeb engineer fresh 
out a' trainin'...

  "they never remember that you were right, just that you caused them
   trouble"

But then, you never let that stop you from telling them like it is!!!

Good luck in sunny CA...

/moser

  I never knew Paul, but I'm sorry to see him go. (I assume he is already gone,
so I'm not addressing this to him.) The successful grass-roots effort to reform
the DCU is something I would have considered impossible two years ago, but with
Paul's leadership, it was done.
  I hope Paul stays on at the DCU. Not being a DECcie is no problem, but being
on the West Coast could be. I was hoping to hear that Paul had found a NEW
ENGLAND company that "values troublemakers". I wonder if such a company exists.

re .10:

>>Geeze, sounds like a eulogy and I"m not dead yet! :-)
Are you getting better?

M

    Good-bye, old friend!  And good luck!
    
    /Charlotte (known Paul for more than 17 years)

    Paul,
    
    I'm sorry to see you go.  I will miss your clear view of what is
    missing in this company, and your courage in speaking out no matter how
    controversial the topic.  Far from being >>an isolated, disgruntled
    employee<< you often voice what I feel but cannot risk saying openly.
    
    I would also like to thank you for the work you did to save the DCU
    from falling into an even greater mess than it already was.
    
    I hope you have success in the future.  You deserve it.

    
    
    What would you rather have in this company, the attitude expressed in
    .0 or .1.
    
    Other companies are different.  DEC is not a good place to work and the
    only worthwhile people in this company are "trouble makers".
    
    Paul,  Say Hi to GERRY VANDENBURGH  at Tandem for me.  She used to be
    myold boss at Comten and is an excellent manager.
    
    
    dan carroll
    
    
    

Paul -

You will be missed. Having talked with you a number of times you know that
we share many feelings and beliefs about what is happening to DEC. Chief among 
these issues is the inability or unwillingness of top management to come to 
grips with the problems that are inexorably destroying DEC. Like you, I have 
been pushing for accountability of management, to no avail. I have well 
documented information of many symptoms of impending total systemic 
collapse at DEC:

* A manager who, in the current climate of layoffs, has "ordered" good 
  performers to resign from DEC; HRM has supported this manager in his 
  purge

* An Open Door Policy that is universally seen as an open door to a 'roach 
  motel' for employees with problems to be addressed: "They check in but they 
  don't check out!"; meanwhile, the problems that brought the employee to
  initiate the ODP are actively convered-up by management; on several 
  occasions, after bringing a complaint to management through the open door, 
  employees have been angrily confronted by the managers about whom the 
  complaint had been made, in confidence

* A manager who nuked an entire department without any interference from
  superiors; this manager, over a period of several years, gave 95% of her 
  subordinates "5" reviews and refused to give the pay raises that had been 
  budgeted; a number of her subordinates suffered substantial physical and 
  mental harm and 'sudden career death syndrome,' yet this manager has 
  subsequently been rewarded with promotions; when a small army of 
  employees went to HRM and line management to get some sort of justice, they
  were all told that there were no problems with management, but rather, that 
  they were "whining malcontents" and "should get back to work" 

* One poor soul was told by her manager that he wanted her to quit; when she 
  refused, he took a swing at her; she reported this and was ignored

* When a worker had to take some extra time off to attend to a family 
  illness, he was forced from the company; when another had to do the same, 
  he was also forced from his job and, after scrambling around a finding 
  another position, had to take a 30% pay cut from which he has never 
  recovered

    Several years ago, after I started a new job within DEC, the group
    manager changed. We were all invited to "Breakfast with [Dick*]."
    When we arrived, Dick turned his chair to face ours and asked us to
    tell him honestly exactly what we thought we were doing well and badly
    in his group. So I told him. Several days later, by boss' boss (who
    reported to Dick), called me into his office, closed the door, and then 
    spent 20 minutes shrieking at me, veins bulging in his forehead, 
    threatening me with being fired if I ever told anyone about anything 
    ever again. This occurred just as DEC was beginning its slide to its 
    present level, financial and atmospheric.

[* clever pseudonym]

I am sure others can relate their own stories.

As you say, Paul, there are  good  managers but there are not enough at a 
sufficient level to make a significant difference. 

I agree that program like "valuing  differences",  "six sigma", and "open 
door" are meaningless without more than lip-service support by upper 
management. In fact, they are worse than useless because they raise false 
expectations.

Your ideas for change have real merit. Unfortunately, as long as a system 
remains in place at DEC in which incompetent and/or poisonous managers can stay 
in place by protecting one another, there will be no change. Ken Olsen's dream 
of a workplace in which everyone had the freedom to rise to their own levels of 
excellence and contribution has mutated into a workplace where a manager's 
pettiness and vindictiveness is not only tolerated but frequently rewarded. No 
manager can get away with "ordering" people to resign from DEC unless there is 
some unspoken system in which that manager is being rewarded for such abuse.
We have a Tale of Two Companies. One is the DEC that still strives to meet a 
market need for product. The other is a shadow DEC that is interested only in 
rewarding members who stick together in enriching themselves at the expense of 
the people who are trying to meet business requirements. And we still have no
visible system for cleaning out the the hidden, poisonous sect that is moving 
along with business as usual, whether that's diverting employees' salaries
and budgeted raises for self-enrichment or simply hurting people because 
hurting others just feels good to a certain sort of person.

Bob  Palmer is indeed on record as unmovably backing personal and corporate 
integrity. He is being done-in by the minions of incompetence and selfishness.
He wasn't kidding when he said "Our biggest obstacle to success is the 
resistance of our leadership." They resist because that resistance continues
to be rewarded.

I have run all this past the new Ethics Office. Its response was to assign to 
look into my charges one of the people I indicated was one of the worst 
offendors. Come aboard!

I most strongly encourage everyone to follow Paul's suggested Steps If You Have 
a Problem, especially documenting _everything_ and keeping back-up copies. 
Poisonous managers may want to run from 200 pages of names, places, dates, and 
witnesses, but it is impossible for them to ignore it.

Good luck, Paul. Perhaps you'll feel a little better knowing that there remain 
a number of us who * will * not * give up. The clock is running. If DEC does 
not do something major and meaningful about how management is running amok,
we have little time before _everyone_ will be looking for another job. You can 
only improve quarterly results by cutting expenses up to a certain point. DEC
saved a whopping $1100 for each employee layed-off to date in F93. Expenses
have continued to increase to fill all available savings. When all you have 
left are $90K "managers" sitting in closed offices all day writing memos to 
one another, it's time to start packing because the movers are on the way.

I am convinced that DEC is chasing an Intel model, with a target total employee 
population of perhaps 70,000 by FY95. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the company 
simply said: "Look. We need to get rid of 23,000 more people in the next 
year or two. This is what we plan to do, and when we plan to do it." Then 
employees could start making plans for the rest of their lives. And DEC would 
start to look like a professionally run company again.

When I joined DEC in 1980 I was told how glad they were to get someone who had 
recently earned an MBA with top honors. How horrible to then have to watch 
while DEC makes almost every mistake we studied in business school.


Ken

    FWIW, I've heard rumblings over ending up at 50K employees.  Face it,
    if they can make you miserable enough to quit, they will -- it saves 
    paying TFSO and unemployment.
    
    I once had a senior manager (base salary over $100K) physically (yes,
    physically) force me to work overtime, back when I was a secretary and
    also was sick.  Personnel got involved -- he got a slap on the wrist; I
    got blugeoned in my next review.
    
    If any manager anywhere in this company ever dares to lay a hand on
    me again, I won't waste 10 seconds on personnel.  I will, however, file
    an assault complaint with the police and take it to court.

    Re:  .26 - Ken, glad you're out there...mebbe Paul's banner is not
    destined to fall to the ground...yet...  There may be others out there,
    as well, that I don't know of, who are trying their level best to get
    Senior Managment to hear, to act...  but...  would the last one out
    please turn out the lights?
    
    I had a happy/sad thought, as long as these Notes conferences remain
    vital and active, Paul will never be completely gone...

    Re .26
    
    I have been with DEC for 8 years.  Never a manager.  Well, I play-acted
    at product managing for a year.  But although I've had my share of gripes
    about management -- a certain level is unavoidable -- I've never seen
    anything so flagrant as the episodes you recount.  In my experience,
    when the red flag is raised with professional courtesy and level-headed
    restraint, the matter is almost always given a fair hearing, and steps
    are taken to amend a bad situation.  
    
    Being what we are -- people -- there will always be failures in any system
    we create -- DEC.  A few bad characters will become managers.  And even
    good managers may encounter situations in which they can't help falling
    prey to self-interest -- just like anyone else.  But to imply that DEC, 
    as a corporate entity, might tacitly endorse practices like those outlined 
    in reply .26, or even .27, is purely outlandish.  Really.  Many of the 
    happenings you speak of, if recounted accurately, are grounds for 
    litigation and should have been prosecuted.  Why weren't they?  Fear of 
    reprisal?  C'mon!  This isn't a nation-state, and human rights are 
    still protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not some 
    Digital Department of Ethics.
    
    An "impending total systemic collapse at DEC?"  If this note-string
    represents a majority opinion, I guess so.  But I believe this company
    is making a real bid to rebound, pockets of severe employee 
    depression notwithstanding.  Why?  Look at the numbers.  Look at the 
    moves being made to stem the red ink and to rationalize DEC's mission.  
    Do these moves make Bob Palmer heartless?  Is upper management completely 
    unresponsive to employees?  It seems so based on what we see from 
    inside the corporation -- for instance, BP and company never even 
    acknowledged the ad campaign I sent them (the one that so many of 
    you seemed to like) -- but when I put my disappointment aside and 
    look outside, I have to admit that DEC is showing real progress at 
    taking back control of its fate.  Our management has made some "tough 
    choices" that are making a real difference on the bottom line and in 
    the world's eyes.  The results all-but-prove it, and that's what counts 
    first.  
    
    To solve a problem -- any problem -- you have to see it from the 
    appropriate perspective.  For a typical employee, it's tough to adopt 
    the mindset that we and our fellow employees could be viewed as 
    numbers, as tools, or as instruments to get a job done.  And yet, that's 
    what management must sometimes do.  Body X costs so-many-dollars and 
    makes so-many-dollars.  Period.  It's harsh.  It's contrary to our 
    code of ethics.  It's so utterly impersonal.  But it's not personal,
    though we often take it as such.  You're nuts if you think management 
    doesn't realize how bad morale is and that they need to do something 
    to change it.  They're doing it.  The problem has one answer from their 
    perspective -- from the capitalist-chief point-of-view.  Stem the red 
    ink.  Get into the black with all haste, because the longer it takes 
    the tougher it will be, until it's impossible.  And we almost waited
    too long.  Now, we've got to get ahead of the spiral decline.  Use 
    whatever cutbacks are at our disposal -- products, resources, strategies, 
    people, and maybe even executive salaries -- all the while understanding 
    that those very cutbacks make the curve that much steeper.  
    
    DEC was perilously close to going over the edge.  KO did stay too long;
    I'll be the first to admit I argued on his behalf, but I believed he'd 
    step down if given a graceful way out.  Anyway, look at where we are now.  
    Last quarter was nearly break-even, and Q4 will show a profit.  That's 
    all but assured from what I hear.  We'll all feel much happier when that 
    happens.  And although the tough times won't be over unless we sustain 
    profitability, it will become increasingly apparent that management 
    has done what had to be done.  Not to save jobs for their own sake, but 
    to restore as much revenue-generating capability as possible, and thus 
    save the jobs that go with it.  The human fall-out is painful, but the 
    sooner the problem is solved, the less pain there will ultimately be.  No 
    one wants to manage continuous decline, and that's why we're going 
    through one more layoff at least, even though we appear to be mending.  
    The last push is resolve, not heartlessness.  
    
    Yes, we're lopping off needed parts and abusing others -- the steepening 
    curve -- but if we can't cope until replacements are fashioned or inept
    practices are identified and purged, we'll die.  But we seem to be 
    coping -- this note-string notwithstanding.  It's tooth and nail time, 
    and DEC is fighting with a will.  In the fracas, some people get ignored, 
    but how else could it possibly be?  Someone has to make the *big* 
    decisions.  There will always be management -- room for the "us and them" 
    mentality -- and no decision will ever be universally popular.  But 
    in better financial times, the entire picture will look different.  Our 
    top management may well find itself heralded as pulling off one of the 
    most successful turn-arounds of a giant corporation in modern history.  
    It's still a long shot, but not nearly so long as it was a few months 
    ago.  Chart the trends, and don't take the ambivalence so personally.  
    Try to imagine the realistic alternatives.  But where there are bonafide 
    transgressions of human rights, then use every professional means at 
    your disposal -- including legal recourse -- to root it out.  Nine times 
    out of ten, I'm betting that legitimate problems get resolved long
    before there's any call to get nasty.
    
    No, I'm not saying this for some hidden reason.  I've no ulterior motives
    whatsoever.  Indeed, I'm likely to leave DEC fairly soon.  But I'd hate 
    to go thinking that the general angst was causing the Indians to rail 
    thoughtlessly -- as I too am too often prone to doing.  So I want to 
    suggest this counterpoint.  People like Paul Kinzelman *do* make a 
    difference at DEC.  So many of these comments attest to the success of 
    his initiative.  But very little will ever happen over night, and 
    sometimes what seems like disregard or even abuse of power is no more 
    than enlightened corporate self interest.  These aren't luxurious times.  
    We can't afford a lot of niceties.  And some managers just plain don't 
    know how to handle the pressure.  But neither can we, the Indians, 
    afford to deny the severity of the measures that must be taken to keep 
    things from getting far worse than they already are, even if we aren't 
    privy to the full intent or rationale of those measures.  
    
    I've been a DEC fan right along -- "Pollyanna optimistic" -- but DEC *is*
    coming back as far as my expectations and money are concerned.  And it's 
    happening right now.  Every move won't be perfect, but they're starting 
    to make sense.  We couldn't say that much 12 months ago.  Take heart in
    that and keep fighting those negative sentiments.  And after this storm
    is weathered, see if you don't find yourself a lot more empowered than 
    seem to feel now.
    
    For what it's worth,
    Dean

This message came floating over my tube. I don't know who wrote it, but
somebody else evidently noticed that there is a problem too. One can
hope/wish that perhaps these are notes that Win took from his meeting
in HLO with employees. From the feeling I got when I last met with him
I doubt it though. :-(


                    MAJOR MESSAGES FROM OUR EMPLOYEES


 0   A MAJOR GAP HAS DEVELOPED BETWEEN EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MANAGERS
     AND EMPLOYEES WHO ARE INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS. COMMENTS FREQUENTLY
     HEARD FROM EMPLOYEES INCLUDE:

        *  NOT ONLY MY MANAGER CANNOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM,
           MY MANAGER IS THE PROBLEM

        *  MANAGERS MANAGE PROJECTS NOT PEOPLE

        *  MANAGERS NO LONGER COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY
           AND THEREFORE CANNOT MAKE INFORMED BUSINESS DECISIONS

        *  MANAGERS SPEND AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME PLAYING
           POLITICS AND AS A RESULT ARE NOT IN TUNE WITH THE DAY
           TO DAY OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS


  0  EMPLOYEES BELIEVE THAT TRANSITION IS HAVING A DISPARATE IMPACT
     ON INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS AND MINORITIES.

  0  EMPLOYEES DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY DOWNSIZING IS TAKING SO LONG.
     "FINISH ALL THE LAYOFFS THIS QUARTER AND START REVITALIZING
     THE COMPANY".

  0  THE EMPLOYEES THAT WERE TRANSITIONED EARLY ON, WHO HAD LOWER
     PERFORMANCE RATINGS, GOT A BETTER TRANSITION PACKAGE THAN OUR
     BETTER PERFORMERS WHO ARE BEING TRANSITIONED TODAY. THIS DOES
     NOT SEEM RIGHT.

  0  MANY ORGANIZATIONS HAVE REDUCED STAFF DRAMATICALLY WITHOUT
     ADJUSTING THE WORKLOAD. WHEN WE DOWNSIZE WE MUST RE-ENGINEER
     THE WORK.

  0  IN THE PAST, EMPLOYEES HAD ALL THE RESOURCES THEY NEEDED TO DO 
     THEIR WORK. NOW THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE RESOURCE STARVED.
     "WE CANNOT GET EQUIPMENT INTERNALLY THAT WE SELL TO OUR CUSTOMERS".

  0  POOR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ENGINEERING OUR PRODUCTS
     AND EMPLOYEES WHO ARE SELLING OUR PRODUCTS GENERATES A LOT OF
     FRUSTRATION FROM BOTH ENDS.

  0  EMPLOYEES BELIEVE BENEFIT COSTS INCREASES ARE BEING PASSED DIRECTLY
     TO EMPLOYEES, THEREFORE CHANGING THE PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEE
     CONTRIBUTION VS. COMPANY CONTRIBUTION.

Re: .29

DEC may turn around but the problem is that upper management in the human
resources department is devoid of ethics from my experience. So even if DEC
turns around, as far as I can tell the same people will still be there and
I've gotten to the point that I refuse to support the structure they resist
fixing. Believe the events mentionned in .26 - I am unfamiliar with his
specific events, and might not even believe them if I had not see similar
stuff myself. Count yourself lucky you didn't get squashed the way lots of
other folks have been squashed.

Farewell, Paul.

Your dedication to trying to fix problems constructively hasn't gone unnoticed.

Your presence will be missed.

Your warnings will likely continue to go unheeded.  But I hope not.

We are diminished by your passing from us.  Your new employer gains.

Best wishes,
Steve

    re: .29
    
    My experience has been that if I raise an issue politely and
    rationally, I am ignored.  If I repeat myself several times, than my
    experience is denied and/or invalidated.  If I elevate, than I am
    creamed, and the experience is "buried."
    

Note .29 makes some good points about the fear and frustration caused by
layoffs.  That problem can only be solved by a return to profitability.

However, that's not the sort of problem that has caused Paul to leave,
and that some of the rest of us are saying that we've experienced.
The problem is not even that there are people in the company who may
choose to act unethically.  The problem is that unethical behavior 
appears to be condoned at high levels of the company, since there are 
senior people who know of such behavior but seem to do nothing.

The author of .29 does not fear reprisal.  I'll just say that I never
thought it could happen to me, either.  

As for prosecution being a way to solve serious abuses... it's not that
easy in practice.  For example, a sexual harrassment case can take 5 years
to make it through the courts.  How many victims have the strength of will
(and the independent means of support) necessary to pursue such a thing to
the end?  Besides, a prosecution would hurt Digital as a whole, and few of
us want to do that.  What we want is for the abusers to be removed.

So, are the cases people have cited real, or are they blown up out of
proportion?  I can only speak to my own case, and I assure you that
it is real.  I can also repeat what a manager once said about how he
treats negative feedback when doing a performance review:

    "If just one person tells me there's a problem, I ignore it.
     But if three people tell me about the same problem, I decide
     that it's probably for real."

When should upper management decide that there is enough negative feedback
about ethical abuses to believe that the problem is for real?  I am not at
all convinced that they yet believe that this is a real problem, although
I'm still waiting for proof either way, and hoping for the best.

	Sincerely,
	Larry Seiler

Re: .29:

I cannot comment on what your experience has been at DEC. However, for you to
discount the events I summarized in .26 shows, unfortunately, the same mindset
displayed by company management in these cases: deny or ignore. Let's make
a deal. If you want, I will check with the people involved in these incidents.
If they do not object, I will share with you the details of these events as 
long as you give your word not to in turn share this information with anyone 
else. It documents not only the events but the fact that management was fully 
informed and refused to act properly. In return, after you have reviewed 
this information, you will post a note here indicating that I have indeed 
correctly represented both the events mentioned and the fact that management 
covered-up the events and, in some cases, then tried to punish the people 
who had brought the complaints. Deal?

Regarding legal action: ever try to sue a huge corporation? I am informed 
that DEC drags out an action for an average of two years before coming to 
trial. Do you have the resources to wait two years -- probably unemployed 
-- before coming to trial? Nonetheless, many people make that choice. If 
you are interested I will inform you in private of where you can go to
review a phonebook-sized volume of suits pending against DEC, brought by 
current and former employees for just the types of situations I related.
    
For whatever reasons, DEC is indeed tacitly endorsing abuse by some managers.
Remember the definition of tacit. This does not imply active support, just
neglect. Please do _NOT_ tell me that this is not happening. It has happened 
to me and to many others. If you have been more fortunate, lucky you.
    
As I indicated, for the 16,000 employees laid off so far in FY93, DEC saved
an average of $1,100 each in SG&A. If this were a course in management, the 
grade would be F. The "improved" third quarter is the result of cost-cutting, 
not business improvement. Just how long and how much do you think R&D, salary,
and other long-term investments can be cut? And what the hell happened to the 
salary and benefits expense saved from 16,000 layoffs? It didn't go to TFSO; 
that's a separate accounting entry.

Sure, drastic times require drastic measures. But to let middle management run 
amok because top management is preoccupied shows, at best, inability to be top 
management, and at worst, a slash-and-burn style of management that says no one 
has any future with DEC.

And by the way, please don't call me "nuts." Such a comment reflects most 
unfavorably upon you.

What's happening at DEC now reminds me of what happened at Eastern Airlines 
several years ago. Costs were up. The company was losing money. New management 
came in and had to make "the tough decisions." Costs were slashed. New 
"products" were introduced. Fast forward several years. Eastern, now bankrupt, 
was liquidated, putting some tens of thousands of people out of work. The new 
management team, headed by Frank Lorenzo, walked away fat and happy. I believe 
that Lorenzo alone pocketed $37,000,000 for his "work" in destroying Eastern.
He made the "tough decisions" all right, but was protected from their effects.

"Over night?" Who said anything about making things change "over night?" The
situations and events I have related go back to 1986. This is a very long 
night.

In summary, I remain certain that, unless certain DECbarnacles are scraped 
from the hull of Digital, there is no future for DEC. It seems likely that 
DEC's long-range plan is to get down to perhaps 70K total employees. And in 
the cruel, cold light of Management by Objective, ignoring legitimate 
employee grievances serves two purposes: it saves money short-term and also 
reduces headcount by simply driving people out of the company.

We learn what we live. All the lip-service in the world about "empowerment" is 
crushed under the weight of one tacitly-approved abusive manager.

If DEC is to be just another company that does business by treating employees 
like kleenex, that's one thing. If, however, it is to be a better place to work 
-- the type of place that attracts and keeps the superior people that make 
a business not just a player but a winner -- then real, timely corrective 
actions need to be taken immediately. So far, this is not the case.


Ken

No.  I'm not trying to say there are no abuses.  I'm only trying to
point out that perspective makes a big difference in what really counts.
There have been many times when I could have made a case for
unfair treatment because events that were beyond my control had
an impact on my career.  The one that comes to mind right away
was a promotion I never got because an organization I'd joined -- on
the promise of getting a promotion -- was reorged and subsumed by
another organization that would not honor that commitment.  From a
personal perspective, this was *grossly* unfair, but from one level
removed, the organization had no alternative.  I've also heard of
many horror stories -- most seemingly less reasonably explained than 
mine -- that, when viewed objectively, often end up being just that.  
Stories.  Not all, but many.  You shouldn't discount the implications.

It's impossible for anyone -- let alone "management" -- to account 
for the endless variety of human perceptions.  "One man's garbage..."
Given the note Paul posted right after my entry, I would have to
believe that "management" knows what's going on.  Maybe Paul isn't
fully convinced, but then maybe he's tilted at one too many windmills.  
We all have our threshold.  It's no crime.  

I don't need to take you up on your offer to know that there are real
feelings and perceptions of abuse -- some cases factual and probably 
provable in court.  I'm *not* saying they don't happen at DEC.  But I refuse
to indulge in the notion that DEC, the corporation, condones them.
Suffice it to say, I just refuse.  If I beleived that, I would
quit immediately.  And besides, I would only end up rationalizing whatever you 
tell me, just as you rationalize what I'm saying.  That's what people do.  
Rationalize.  Until whatever it is that they're thinking about fits into 
whatever place needs filling.  I beleive you're convinced of some 
malicious intent.  I just don't read the signals the same way.

No, I've never tried to sue anyone.  But if I'm ever convinced that
I've been criminally wronged, I will absolutely litigate, and I will
sue for all damages, including time lost.  That goes without saying.
And being the writer that I am, I'll probably start a PR campaign to 
embarrass my transgressor into capitulating.  Sure, I believe there's 
a phone-book sized volume of cases pending.  I'd suspect that IBM, HP, 
Data General, Proctor and Gamble, GM, and just about any other large 
corporation you can name has just such a volume.  I don't think 
that indicates the willful, systematic betrayal of employee rights.  
At least, I haven't felt my rights to be unduly abused, nor do I think 
that most of my colleagues -- even those TFSO's -- have any exceptional 
grievances.  Maybe I have just been lucky.  Or maybe I'm somewhat more 
realistic.  Or maybe I'm just a pushover.  

Yes, the improved third quarter is a result of cost cutting.  I figure
16,000 salaries no longer being paid is cutting a lot of cost.  I'm
not sure what you mean by "DEC saved an average of $1,100 each in SG&A."
But if we aren't paying those salaries, it's got to show up someplace
on the balance sheet.

Yes, these drastic measures are tough, but they aren't the way DEC
grew up.  We've had better times, when DEC was a "GREAT" place to be.  
Again I assert, the times exacerbate the perception.  You've got to see
past and around them to envision better times.  Maybe I'm kidding myself,
but I don't think the way things are is the way management wants them
to be.  Time may prove me wrong, but I believe I have the greater 
weight of precedent on my side.  We'll just have to see.

I always try to be extremely careful in the language I use.  I thought 
twice about the phrase "you must be nuts," but I felt the overall tenor
of my note would alleviate any misinterpretation of my meaning.  It's
just a colloquialism.  I did not mean to imply that you're actually
"nuts," but only that your reasoning might benefit from a little cooling
down.  Maybe not.  I don't know you.  If that phrase reflects "most
unfavorably," well that's too bad, as your attention was likely diverted
from the meaning I'd hoped to impart.

Eastern airlines?  We don't even begin to compare.  DEC is betting the
company on Alpha, not some re-hashed service routes.  DEC is also
consolidating on redundant efforts, invigorating sales and marketing,
outsourcing what we admit we don't do well, focusing on those things
that we do.  We haven't thrown out the baby with the bath water.
Not yet, at least.  But that will come if this respite doesn't
pan out into a bonafide rebound.  That's the only thing to do with
a broken business.  If you don't embrace the current efforts as a remedy,
then they won't work, and we'll never know the kind of DEC whose
absence you lament.  Geez, I sound like a holistic corporate psychologist!

Yes, this is a very long night.  "It's always darkest before the dawn."
Maybe, just maybe, this once.

Yes, certain DECbarnacles need to be scraped from the hull of Digital.
I love the maritime metaphor.  I believe they will be.  Hell, I've
seen a lot of them get scraped already.  Really.  Maybe not the
condemnable ones you're aware of, but there's lots of empty management
offices in my organization.

I doubt DEC will contract down to 70,000 employees.  I think the magic
number is 85,000.  The current financials would seem to justify that many
bodies.  If sales fall -- for any reason -- expect more layoffs unless
we can reasonably forcast an upturn.  Tough even in good times.  But
personally, I think sales will start to show modest gains.  Hell,
if Alpha could run DOS and Windows, I'd say our bottom line would move
up nicely.  Oh well, that's another topic, and I've already cast my votes.

Does DEC want to drive people from the company?  I've thought so
too -- in weaker moments -- but I don't really believe it.  On the
other hand, if someone wants to leave, no one is likely to stop them.
The employee morale isn't a case of malicious intent on management's
part.  It's a matter of events getting much larger than anyone imagined.
Things fall through the cracks.  As a good friend of mine likes to 
say -- someone who had a serious brush with the same type of inequity
you've alluded to -- "sh*t happens."  He got out of the way.  And
he was later TFSO'd.  Leaving DEC was the best thing that ever could 
have happened to him.  He'd had enough.  Does that make DEC bad?  He 
doesn't seem to hold any grudge.

>If DEC is to be just another company that does business by treating employees 
>like kleenex, that's one thing. If, however, it is to be a better place 
>to work -- the type of place that attracts and keeps the superior people 
>that make a business not just a player but a winner -- then real, timely 
>corrective actions need to be taken immediately. So far, this is not the 
>case.

I agree and disagree.  I think that actions are being taken that will
restore the equitable environment you expect.  But in the meantime, things
will remain difficult, not the least because tensions are high and 
perceptions of actions often overshoot the intent of their authors.

Ever yours,
Dean

    >I don't need to take you up on your offer to know that there are real
    >feelings and perceptions of abuse -- some cases factual and probably 
    >provable in court.  I'm *not* saying they don't happen at DEC.  But I
    >refuse to indulge in the notion that DEC, the corporation, condones
    >them. Suffice it to say, I just refuse.  
    
    Refusal to believe in the face of real evidence is called "denial."
    
    >If I beleived that, I would quit immediately.
    
    This probably explains the denial, 'cause you're still here -- and
    so is the abuse, along with its being condoned.

    re .36
    
    Fron your reply, you think we have the wrong perception of management.
    
    Well, the statements you make in .36 give me the perception you are a
    quitter, a suer, and either a manager or just plain ignorant.
    
    Does anyone else reading this have as much blind faith in management as 
    .36??
    
     

    Re: .35, .36 and the $1,100/employee savings.
    
    Has anyone checked to see the trend of the consultant/contractor
    activity for the company?  Could an increase in this (to cover work
    that TSFO'ed people used to do) be the hole that is absorbing the
    "savings" we should have from 16,000 less people??

Dean -

No. We are not talking about an issue of perspective, feelings, or perception
here. We are talking about very clear issues of right and wrong. I am not an 
adherent of 'variable morality.'

Here is one example. 

Manager A calls Employee to an unscheduled, closed door meeting. Manager tells 
Employee, who has always had only "2" and "3" reviews, that Employee's job has 
been eliminated, and as a result, Manager is ordering Employee to resign. 
Employee, taken totally by surprise, asks about TFSO. Manager replies that this 
is at the discretion of a manager, and this Manager has decided to simply order 
Employee to resign. Manager also says Personnel has sanctioned this move.

Employee gets the contents of meeting in writing. Manager does not contest the
contents of the memo.

Employee then elevates issue to site Personnel via Open Door Policy, with 
copies to site Legal Department and Corporate Personnel. Personnel
Manager B says he will work issue. Time passes. No word from Personnel Manager 
B. 

Employee talks to Coworker about situation and is astounded to learn that 
Manager has presented Coworker with same ultimatum.

Manager A now claims a "misunderstanding," despite memo, but now insinuates
"performance issues" into saga. Employee then formally contacts, in writing,
Personnel Managers C, D, and E (with copies to Legal and Corporate 
Personnel), who Manager A has indicated have said that he can indeed force 
Employee out of company without a pot to piss in. Managers D and E refuse to 
respond, despite repeated calls and memos. Manager C says, in writing, that, 
yes, he did indeed say Manager A could order Employee to resign, leaving
Employee to make the next move. This is clearly in violation of company policy, 
but neither Manager A nor Manager C seem to care.

No word from Personnel Manager B.

Employee is able to find job in other group. Coworker is bullied out of DEC.

Neither Manager A nor Personnel Managers B, C, D, or E are ever brought to task 
for their parts. The Open Door is revealed (again) to be an empty shell.
Neither Legal Department nor Corporate Personnel ever respond.

    Employee subsequently refers matter to the vice presidential level. The
    response is to assign to review case -- Manager C, who was in this scheme 
    up to his eyeballs and has already said that he fully supported Manager A.

Is this starting to get through to you, Dean? This is so far beyond simple
    incompetence that it can only be by intent. And since management hasn't
    been doing a thing to stop it -- you tell me.

We're not talking about a missed promotion here, or "one man's garbage." We're 
talking about everyone's garbage. You are free to refuse to believe that DEC 
condones this sort of thing. Let's just say that a number of middle managers 
condone it, and when Corporate is notified, the company has in the past
    simply ignored it. 
    
    Clear now? I am not rationalizing. I am not interpreting. I am relating 
    documented facts.

My statement that "DEC saved $1100 per TFSOed employee" refers to the savings 
in SG&A after nine months. Based upon 16,000 employees TFSOed during that time, 
SG&A decreased just $1100 per employee cut. That stinks and indicates that 
cutting employees does not save money -- at DEC, anyway.

Yes, things remain difficult, tensions high, and perceptions colored. However, 
in the cases I relate, we are not talking about colored perceptions. We are 
talking about serious wrongdoing, and the company has not been dealing with it.
You decide why.

This is not the company I joined in 1980. I want that company back. I think we 
both do. An unavoidable step in reaching that goal is making managers 
accountable for their actions.


Ken

This note is from somebody else who wishes to remain anonymous. I am leaving
today, so sending me mail if you wish to communicate with the author will
not work. I'd suggest posting a request in the notes file and hopefully
he will read it and arrange something.

Paul, 

    your departure gives occasion to say a few words that need to be said,
largely because I share your concerns about DEC, and because you are indeed the
"troublemaker" that is so badly needed. I am one too, but not as successful or 
objective or courageous as you are. 
    So, this will have to be anonymous, but you can and should put it into the 
notes. I hope this notes file will grow, even as you leave.
    To begin with, as the other anonymous note, this is very personal, and I 
will not even attempt to be pseudo-objective but will call a spade a spade.
    As far as your going-away message is concerned, it is TOO MILD. Things are
probably worse than you think. Your belief in your local middle-level management
is probably naive. I think at least 80% of all middle-level management is lousy,
selfish, uninformed, and disinterested, and I suspect yours is too. I also think
that they are probably SCARED of you, and that's why they treat you decently.
    We all do this. WE WANT TO BELIEVE we are working for a good boss. I have 
done this again and again, and often wound up disullusioned. And then of course,
there are GOOD MANAGERS. So, I, like you, am not attacking middle-management as
whole evil entity, but only bureaucrates, beancounters, and plain imcompetents.
Unfortunately, by bitter experience, that's about 80% of them.
    Let me also say that my criticism, at least in the past, has not included
upper management. We had some fanstastic people, ethical and technical, such
as Ken Olsen and Gordon Bell. Never talked to Ken, but his MORAL PRESENCE was
fantastic. I met with Gordon a few times; it was always good. To the point,
technical, honestly emotional. I also met Win Hindle a long time ago; a true
gentleman, interested, a human being. Yes, he may be out of touch by now, but
I think he's got a most difficult job. Indeed, he should have allowed you to 
help him. That he didn't, was wrong.
   My own story is this. I am in inventor type, senior, reasonably successful, 
about 15 years at DEC, papers, patents, much outside recogniton. Middle
management, for all these years, has been NOTHING BUT TROUBLE for me. About
80% of them have always fought and resented me as if I were trying to destroy
the company. I have succeeded, in spite of them, to do a few good things for 
DEC. WITH the help of the 20% good managers, but it has been a bitter battle. 
    One thing is that middle management almost always is in COMPETITION WITH
ME, a ridiculous competition, but nevertheless competition. They are in 
competition with SUCCESSFUL TECHNICAL PEOPLE. They do not want us to gain
too much power. They do not give a damn about the success or failure of this 
company, about the long term, but are self-absorbed, engaged in self-
preservation above all things. They often may have thought I wanted their jobs 
(nonsense) or some of their power (true, of course), and that my feelings were 
often of contempt (which, I am afraid, is sometimes true). 
    We are, I am afraid, becoming a VERY ORDINARY COMPANY. I have worked at
six companies in a 40 year career, and DEC was special. I think your fight
for ethics is the key. I think Ken Olsen, with his quaker ethics, provided
something crucial in that dimension. 
    I will try to survive here. We will let you know it goes. 

                                                          X

Dean - one of the bureaucrats strategies is to hamper communications so
that folks will see each case that's brought up as an isolated case and not
the norm. I have not personally seen a great number of cases, but I have
seen several that went all the way to the top of the human resources
chain and nothing was done so it's clear to me what the norm is.
In most if not all cases, what happened was a premeditated
response. We're not talking about a minor mistake or accident here. We're
talking lots of thought and damage control. It's really sad to see people
in a position of power to act as though they are devoid of ethics but at
the same time fool the top people (like KO and possibly Win Hindle) into
thinking they are doing the right thing.

I was committed enough to Digital that there was no company on the face of
this earth that could have gotten me to leave Digital... except for Digital.
I have seen too much how management operates and what they hold important.
The Digital that's left is a fraudulent shell of what Digital once was.
If you doubt that most people share my view, how come my messages get
so rapidly forwarded around the world (of DEC)?

Dean, the bureaucrats are depending on folks like you to help them hold on
to the status quo. As long as there is a critical mass of folks who
continues to think that each case is an isolated case and is not the
norm, management won't change. They will only begin the repair when they
see that their propaganda and damage control has stopped working.

I've been working for Digital for 12 years. Most of the management and personnel
people and many of the worker bees I've dealt with during that time have been
extremely dysfunctional. Much of that dysfunctionality stems from large amounts
of ignorance, much of it willful, and from professional and personal jealousy.

I don't expect many of those who are dysfunctional to ever become much less
dysfunctional, because I don't believe they are capable of it. It's like
expecting a person with no legs to learn how to run.

Many of the people in Digital, mostly males, remind me so much of male dogs:
running around lifting their legs to mark their territory, putting their front
paws up on everyone else's shoulders and trying to mount everyone else to
establish themselves as the alpha male. They only seem interested in territory 
and position in the pack, and not in doing the hunting.

I believe the best way to change Digital for the better is to get rid of those
whose dysfunctions get in the way of Digital being the best company it can be.

Digital has an alpha male. Digital needs to get rid of those who would be alpha
male and let the hunters get on with the hunt!

It is a conference rule that only DIGITAL moderators can post anonymous notes.
I was contacted by the anonymous noter in .41 and can forward mail to the note
author.

Rather than delete and repost .41, I'll simply add the normal anonymous note
header here...

    .41 has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to ROWLET::AINSLEY, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

    RE: .43  hahahahahaha, that was a joke.......right??????
    
    
    
    
    Mike

    RE: .43  by XNTRIK::MAGOON 
    
    >Many of the people in Digital, mostly males, remind me so much of male
    >dogs: running around lifting their legs to mark their territory,
    >putting their front paws up on everyone else's shoulders and trying to
    >mount everyone else to establish themselves as the alpha male. 
    
    Alpha dominance is Digital's fondest dream.
    

    re .37
    
    Denial?  I've not once claimed that these things don't happen 
    at DEC, but only that it's not some grave, unwritten policy of 
    this corporation.  By all means, go after the bastards that 
    perpetrate a real crime.  Just be sure you try to excersise
    an objective perspective.  
    
    Re .38
    
    Quitter?  My eight years here have not been a cake walk.  There have 
    been a hundred times when I wanted to quit, and I've fought lots 
    of battles -- product and strategy related.  That's sort of my "claim 
    to fame."  Once a badge of honor at DEC.  Would I be arguing on 
    management's behalf if I were a quitter?  I don't think so.  I just 
    tend towards Devil's advocacy.  "Bingo," you figure.  "Managers are 
    all a bunch of Devils."  Well, you got me.  Actually, there really 
    is a Machiavellian plot to systematically deny individual contributors 
    of their confidence and rights, basically because hapless, quivering 
    slaves are more productive than creative innovators.  Obviously.
    
    And no, I'm not a manager.  You didn't read my notes thoroughly.  Nor 
    have I ever sued anyone (although I was once rear-ended and my
    neck still aches).  But I guess you didn't infer that.  That
    leaves ignorance, which goes hand in hand with blind faith.  Mia culpa.
    
    
    re:Ken and Paul
    
    I do understand what you're saying.  But if you attack *ALL* 
    management and infer tacit, exploitive policy, of course you'll 
    be viewed as a trouble maker and shoved aside.  I think that attitude 
    alone hurts your case.  If these problems require escalation to 
    the very top, then don't alienate the very folks that have to help you.  
    I don't think that's arguing for the status quo, I think that's just 
    common sence.  And if the very top turns a deaf ear to cogent,
    rationally voiced grievances, then it really is time to leave, as 
    you are doing Paul.  But are you certain the very top doesn't 
    care?  Or could they have their hands full trying to save what they 
    can of this company, and thus hold priorities that are different 
    from yours?  I can only conjecture.  
    
    Paul, I'm sorry to see you leave.  It might have been interesting to
    work through this a bit more.  
    
    Ken, what does SG&A stand for?  Sorry to be so "ignorant."  I'm
    not up to speed with business acronyms.
    
    Best of luck to you all. 
    Dean
    
    PS  I just had a call from a woman.  She didn't want to give her
    name, but she wanted to tell me about her experience with a manager
    that threatened to hit her.  Personnel even witnessed a threatening
    gesture, but no reprisal resulted.  Clearly a case in point.  The woman
    also mentioned that this sort of thing seems to have gotten worse in
    the past six years, and that as many as 18 years ago, when personnel
    was a separate entity, unbeholden to any product-line manager, these sort
    of events were dealt with properly.  Perhaps therein lies part of
    the problem?  Apparently there isn't a VP of personnel.  Leaving
    personnel in the line-manger (middle) loop makes it tough from 
    them to excersise impartiality.  That's an objective issue.

re: .40 SG&A

Isn't the savings going to trickle in slowly as people's "packages" run
out?  If the majority of the TFSOs are indeed behind us as of July (hope
against hope), then the real savings should start getting more obvious
by CY94.  Plus there are longer term impacts to downsizing like being able
to consolidate and close more facilities.

re: rest of string

Who is at the top of the HR chain anyway?  Is it Farrahar, or does it
still go up to Sims?  One guess would be that BP and company are trying
to let them finish the TFSO process before scrutinizing their other
activities.
								- paul

    RE: SG&A
    
    I believe SG&A stands for Selling, General & Administrative expenses. 
    I'm not sure of how all of the specific labor costs get categorized at
    Digital, but I would think that a good portion of the 16,000 TFSO'd
    people would have fallen into other labor categories.  For example
    direct costs, such a labor costs which goes into the production of
    manufactured goods, would be captured under cost of goods sold, not
    SG&A.  When I used to work in the Aircraft industry a very small
    portion of the work force, usually senior mgt, was categorized under
    G&A expense.  My point is that you can't take the reduction in SG&A and
    divide by 16,000 and arrive at an accurate cost/person reduction.  You
    would need to determine the number of TFSO'd people who were formally
    categorized under SG&A.  A more appropriate measure would be total
    labor and variable overhead cost per person across all categories.
    
    I've been here five years now, so I wasn't a part of Digital during the
    good times.  I will say that I have never felt as good about the SENIOR
    leadership at Digital as I do now (ie Bob Palmer, Russ Gullotti).  They
    are in the process of implementing changes which need to take place. 
    They are providing strategic leadership and pointing the company in a
    definite target (instead of shooting arrows off in all directions,
    hoping they'll hit something).  I believe they have made great progess
    during the few months that they have been in leadership.  Its going to
    take time to change attitudes and ways of doing business which have
    been engrained over many years (its kind of like losing weight, if it
    took a year to put on the weight, its not going to come off in a week). 
    
    I don't believe every one in middle/lower level mgt has gotten the
    message yet.  For instance, senior mgt. has consistently been saying we
    need to reduce travel to mtgs (taking 3 people, when 1 will do).  The
    people that I see abusing this guideline is mgt. for the most part.  If
    BP holds his mgt accountable, I believe this will change, but its going
    to take time.
    
    In short I believe that there are a lot of things to be positve about
    in our company.  I know that there are still a lot of abuses, but I
    don't believe they started when BP became CEO.  It takes years of
    inaction for these kinds of things to happen, and it will take time to
    fix them.  I believe we need to give BP a chance and point towards the
    same target that he's trying to lead the company in.
    
    Bing

Well, time for my 2 cents worth... (Please bear in mind all statements
below are personal opinion or experience.  There are no intentional
disparaging remarks directed at others in this string).

I too, at times, have been disillusioned with the "new" DEC.  And it's true
that it's not the same company I started with in 1980.  It's a new company, and
I have to adapt or leave.  The only constant in today's world and workplace is
CHANGE. 

Remember the grass is NOT always greener on the other side.  I personally
don't think the incidents related in this string are unique to DEC.  Yes, they
are wrong and shouldn't happen, but to believe it doesn't happen in thousands
of other companies is naive (IMO).

I have my own horror stories that in recent years have caused me pain and
career setbacks, and of the 13 or so managers I've had in DEC, there are only
three I would rate as excellent.  Unfortunately, all 3 are long gone from DEC.

So, what's my point?  I guess it's that I'm still here, I still believe Digital
is one of the best places I can be, and the negative effects of whining and
complaining do little to improve the situation.  In fact, "morale", that word
everyone hates from either perspective, suffers most when people publicly
grumble.

I'm not saying people should be quiet and allow injustices to be hidden.  Find
someone who will act on it, difficult as that may be.  But don't cite tons of
examples for all to see, as it only succeeds in demoralizing everyone, even
those who have never encountered any wrongful act or person wronged.

The world's not perfect and neither is DEC, but it is pretty good overall, and
we need to work to improve it.
    

    A bit of a tangent, but what the hey ...
    
    I was out in the Mill parking lot waiting for my wife to pick my up a
    few nights ago.  When I'm out there, I like looking at the ants.  It's
    like watching a small company if you can find the ant hole.  Each ant
    has a job to do and pretty much "does the right thing."  Watch any one
    ant and the little critter wanders about, not always in a straight path
    and often going around in circles.  It might pick up a twig near the
    hole and move it over.  It might wander out and bring in a morsel.  It
    might find an aggressor and pull on an appendage (hoping that other
    ants will join in).  It's amazing what the group can do.  Probably the
    epitomy of Management by Objective.  The ant hill will survive and go
    through good times and bad.  Each little ant can pretty much depend on
    all the other ants and on lifetime employment (at least until
    Management by Objective determines that some ants are going out to face
    the marauders and aren't coming back).
    
    Then I thought while watching one particularly industrious ant.  The
    critter was probably a top performer, innovative and hard working. 
    But, in spite of all that could be done, this ant would always be an
    ant.
    
    The lesson?  I guess it is the recognition that Digital has become a
    Big Company.  Many of us want it to be a Little Company like it once
    was where the focus was on the contributions of the individual or of
    small teams.  And, with the downsizing some folks figure Digital is 
    destined to once again become a Little Company.  But, I think that 
    Digital has become like an ant colony.  Though times will be good and 
    bad in the future, it will continue on as an ant colony.  Those who hire 
    on and stay on will be ants with all the privileges and limitations.
    
    Paul's leaving kind of set me thinking this way because to me he was
    one of the main people who represented the ideals and value of the
    individual that the old Digital embodied.  From his perspective, I
    believe the new Digital became that which the old Digital eschewed.  
    It is no wonder that he left.  Who wants to be an ant when there is
    a small herd of gazelles you can run with?
    
    Steve

    "You can catch more flies using honey that you can using vinegar"
    applies to managers too.

    I get the impression that some contributors to this topic are most
    interested in making the case for disrespecting the integrity of
    Digital's top managers.  But where does that leave the rest of us?  How
    can we work effectively with people we have been convinced not to
    respect?

    And that word - trust?  Trust means that when you ask your manager for
    support, you can walk away with confidence that your manager will
    indeed come through for you.  If you act as though you suspect that
    your manager is going let you down, you are setting yourself up for
    just such an outcome.

    It is a difficult balancing act - between naive trust of a parental
    authority figure and complete disillusionment.

    IMHO: the 80-20 rule applies here.  Sure, managers must go 80% of the
    way to build trust in the folks who work for them.  When those workers
    see 80% coming at them from management's side, the employees ready to
    go their 20% of the distance will be the ones who still work here.

    
    Re: .47 and the threat of violence
    
    There's no point in explaining away how things have changed and
    that's why personnel did nothing.
    
    A direct threat of violence is an assault.  I'd have called the
    police, filed a complaint, and sued the pants off the company if they
    carried out any reprisals against me.  I would *not* stand for that.
    
    Steve
    

    I never meant to imply that all management is rotten. If that were the
    case, it would be futile to try and effect change. On the other hand,
    it is clear to me that DEC _cannot_ turnaround unless it faces its deep
    problems with much of middle management.
    
    If a person takes a swing at an employee -- 
    
    If a manager tries to bully an employee into quitting --
    
    If a manager gives everyone in her group "5s" and keeps their raises --
    
    If a person is forced to quit because they are trying to deal with a
    serious family illness --
    
    These managers should be suspended _instantly._ Then, DEC can decide if
    termination or criminal prosecution is also in order.
    
    If a manager has a serious problem presented to them by an employee and 
    ignores it, that manager should have to do a pretty impressive rug dance 
    in order to keep their job.
    
    Of course there are excellent managers here. I've had the privilege of
    working for several of them (although all but one have since left DEC).
    But the presence of some excellent people makes the presence of some
    unexcellent people all the more apparent.
    
    I have been involved in one situation since 1986. "Management" has
    successfully buried it so far, although I keep leaving it, bleeding on 
    the floor, in subsequent offices. And I will continue to do so until it 
    is properly addressed.
    
    We have DELTA. We should have "DEC DROP A DIME," too. Issues reported
    should be professionally investigated within days of reporting. And as
    Paul and others have already said, as long as the management that is
    committing the crimes is investigating itself, nothing will change, and
    DEC will not survive.
                   

    Paul's flight for Cupertino left at 3:40p this afternoon.
    
    Paul was my friend.  Paul taught me that there are still special
    individuals from the "old" DEC that still believe in doing the right
    thing, and are willing to put themselves on the line to fight for that
    right, and for all DEC employees.
    
    Paul gave me my first sailplane lesson.
    
    Happy soaring, Paul!

    A changing world.
    
    I have seem like problems in nearly all the companies I have ever
    worked for or with. It really is unacceptable but is a fact of life.
    I don't believe for one minute that management (the good ones) condone it
    
    Have you ever tried to remove someone for these reasons. It's
    become almost impossible. I tried once. The guy admitted it was his
    problem. (His hands were incapable of leaving the female staff alone)
    Yet when finally asked to go (after verbal and written warnings) denied
    everything, called in the legal mob etc.
    
    It got really messy. Staff took sides, lawyers took fees, I took a
    beating, the company got took.
    
    Just as it takes years to get corporations to court try settling
    employee cases from the companies side. I tried its real sole distroying.
    It not easy and actually becomes so expensive that giving in is a
    reasonable choice.
    
    I have often wondered if we all have forgotten why we are here. It
    often appears that each of us now works for ourselves alone, the team
    spirit has gone. I suspect its the result of 3 things.
    
    Size
    	Digital's so big its impossible for anyone, or even a group to
    	understand and control. It structure no longer supports its size.
    	Maybe the slow breakup will help, it appears to in other companies.
    	Also people have little or no sense of belonging to such a large
   	complex company. They can no longer see the greater goal.
    Market
    	The market is not growing. Mistakes made in the past were "covered
    	up" by the always growing market. Its just not true any more. There is
    	little or no real growth. In fact we can now produce so much more
    	per person that Digital needs to get smaller. Its true not just of
    	our industry but of several.
    Coach
    	Who does now lead me. We are so far removed from the real leaders.
   	We would not even know them if they appeared in our offices. This is
    	because none of us are given the authority we need to do your jobs. So
    	if we need something it goes from us to our manager and most often to
    	theirs and often to the next level. The result is that our *real*
    	manager is someone we don't know and never see. In fact I often feel
    	there is a special committee that does it. It just doesn't meet too
    	often.    

    To those of you saying that it is bad news to talk about issues such as
    Paul brought up in .0 and it is bad for morale and that people should
    find someone up the chain to address issues. Well my experience is
    that going up the chain doesn't work. I have personally seen problems
    that were refused to be addressed and the victim sandbagged for years.
    The problem is that the problem is SYSTEMIC. People like Paul Kinzelman
    have made a valiant effort to address it at the highest levels of the
    company. In general all he got was a lot of platitudes and no action.
    He was just perceived to be a trouble maker.
    
    Until sunshine is put on these systemic problems morale will remain
    low. Pretending there isn't a problem is not the answer.
    
    I learned my lesson back in 1985. I was younger and more naive then.
    The company was not following policy in regards to my relocation
    benefits and I had documentation that I was being discriminated against
    vis a vis another employee. I tried taking the issue up the management
    chain and to personnel. The managers pointed at each other to say the
    other made the decision. The personnel rep and the personnel group
    manager refused to accept my hard data. I pushed and pushed. Eventually
    I backed down because I was effectively told that if I didn't the
    company would not back my Green Card application. That threat was
    enough to make me back down. But I've resented it ever since.
    
    And my case is extremely mild compared to other situation that I
    personal knowledge of.
    
    So those of you that say there isn't a problem you can continue to
    believe that until it is you that gets nailed. And it is my belief that
    it is this systematic abuse of power that is responsible for a lot of
    morale problems in the company.
    
    Dave 

re Note 2485.50 by KAOOA::HASIBEDER:

> So, what's my point?  I guess it's that I'm still here, I still believe Digital
> is one of the best places I can be, and the negative effects of whining and
> complaining do little to improve the situation.  In fact, "morale", that word
> everyone hates from either perspective, suffers most when people publicly
> grumble.
  
        I agree that morale suffers a lot when people publicly
        grumble, but I think morale suffers MOST when people have no
        outlet for sharing their angers and frustrations or, worse,
        are actively prevented from doing so.

        Bob

    Public grumbling is what let me know that the abuses I suffered were
    not flukes or my fault.  That bit of knowledge is what will drive me to
    fight them in the future, and have some insight into how to fight them, 
    instead of waiting for the problem to go away or not documentating from 
    the moment I suspect a problem.

    Guess we won't be playin' any disc this Summer, 'eh?  :)
    
    Best of luck to you Paul.  You're one in a million!
    
    Bob Sousa

       Paul, thanks for your many years of effort trying to improve the
    plight of the household variety (Joe/Jane) DEC employee. It's tough
    fighting bureaucracy in its' many mutated forms. But, somebody has
    to play the role of David so that Goliath doesn't always get the
    unfair advantage in battle.
    
    							regards,

    								Bob

    

    Does anyone have Paul's new enet address?
    
    

This is what Paul told me his address would be.  I haven't 
tried it myself:

	[email protected]

Later,

Andy

It's real (at least tandem.com confirms it).

From:	DECWRL::"[email protected]" "Mail Delivery Subsystem" 17-MAY-1993 16:02:48.71
To:	<sofbas::sherman>
CC:	
Subj:	Returned mail: User unknown

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
Connected to comm.Tandem.com:
>>> RCPT To:<[email protected]>
<<< 550 Bad Recipient Name
550 <[email protected]>... User unknown

    If anyone is able to get a mail address that works, could you please
    post it here.
    
    I've known Paul for years, worked with him about 10 yrs. ago, as
    secretary for an engineering group he was in, and I've always liked and
    respected him a lot.  I just found out that he left the company and
    moved to California, and I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to say
    goodbye.  Regardless of what Paul said earlier in this string, he is
    somebody special.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Re .-1:
    
>    Regardless of what Paul said earlier in this string, he is
>    somebody special.
>    
>    Lorna
    
    I'm curious why does what Paul said earlier in this string make him any
    less "special" to you? I don't know about you but one of the major
    things about Paul that earned my respect is his dedication to standing
    up to people (whoever they are) when he sees wrong being done. I see
    his comments earlier in this string as just more of that.
    
    Dave
    
    

    re -1, Dave, sorry, I was apparently unable to convey my meaning to
    you.  Paul said in .10, of this string, and I quote, "I'm nobody
    special."  What I was saying, in reply to that was that, regardless of
    the fact that *he* said "I'm nobody special", I think he *is* somebody
    special.  Do you understand what I meant now?  Sorry for not being
    clearer before.
    
    I certainly applaud all the efforts Paul made over the years to make
    Digital a better place for the average worker.   (Plus, I enjoyed the
    various interesting conversations I had with him over the years, and I
    appreciate the time he changed a tire for me in the DEC parking lot!
    :-)  )
    
    I hope I have a chance to write to him and wish him well in the future. 
    Ironically, I saw him in a restaurant, in Maynard, a month or so ago. 
    I was walking by on the sidewalk and he waved to me from inside.  If I
    had any idea at the time that he was about to move to California I
    would have gone inside to talk to him.  *sigh*
    
    Lorna
    
    

I've gotten  a  good  Internet  address  for  Paul  Kinzelman, but at Paul's
request, I'm not able to post it in this notes file.  

However, Paul  did give me permission to give out his address to individuals
making  specific  requests  for  it.  So....as long as I don't get 3000 mail
messages  a  day,  I'd  be  happy to provide this service to Paul's friends,
colleagues, and acquaintances.

Please send me mail at ASG3::STEWART.

Thanks,

Andy

    Has anyone heard from Paul? I used the latest, "certified" address for
    him, and it came back undeliverable.
    
    ken