Conference 7.286::digital

    That's a classic.                                        
    
    I took the course "Essentials for New Managers At Digital" back in
    February of 1989.  That was hardly "nowadays".  At that time, the
    course presented several management styles, ranging from:
    	
    	Hover over the workers and treat them like unruly children
    
    			     to
    
    	Back off and let the workers figure things out for themselves
    	(remove road blocks and catch 'em if they stumble occassionally)
    
    The message was to adopt a style that you felt most comfortable with.
    You were shown the possibilities and the consequences of each style
    but not told which one was the approved 'company' style.   
    
    Of course they also went over the nuts-and-bolts of stuff like P & P,
    EEO, and such. 
    
    I came to the conclusion that you cannot _teach_ someone to be a manager.
    People in management positions are what they are because what they
    _learned_, regardless what they may or may not have been 'taught'
    This observation comes from life experiences totalling 44 of my 53
    years [not just at Digital].

    If Nicolo was so damn clever, why wasn't he the Prince ?
    
    :-))
    
    John

    Machiavelli should be mandatory reading especially for managers...
    
    q
    

    
    Sad part is that if a typical DEC manager read Machiavelli, he'd 
    take it too seriously.  Why not give them the modern version by
    "Mr. Personal Power Infomercial" Tony Robbins.
    
    Machiavelli would have been a colleague of Michael Milken had he been
    born in our era.
    
    -Ed
    

    And therein lies much of the cause of our current state. I attribute a
    lot of the decline of DEC to middle management that couldn't understand
    the concept of Senior executives' directives, and thus taking them too
    literally, which in turn led to Senior Management finding that they had
    to micro-manage the organization, and not decide strategic direction.
    
    This hasn't changed...
    
    q
    

Did anyone ever stop to realize how similar the papacy used to be
to a DEC middle-management position today ? 

Both are positions which stressed political manuvering over
real skill in order to attain the position.

Both seem to be for life.

Neither are any real guarantee of personal integrity.




R

> Both are positions which stressed political manuvering over
> real skill in order to attain the position.
    
    Couldn't agree with you more and it is still happening, this is what
    makes me so mad with Digital.
    
    Ren�

    If political manoeuvering a la Machiavelli is a sign of having read and
    being at ease with the works of the late Nicolo,then in my humble
    experience,it must be required reading...

    Machiavelli is my good bud.  His work discloses the "secrets" of
    tyrants and other despots.  There are lessons in his writings on how to
    manage people well in addition to lessons on how to govern ruthlessly
    and selfishly while building a loyal following.  His writings should be
    required reading so that folks can discern when they are being ruled
    well versus being jerked around.  It is no wonder that his name has
    been scorned over the years.  From what I observe, the leaders in this
    are historically the very dictators he describes!
    
    Steve

    It should be pointed out that Machiavelli's book was written at a time
    of societal instability.  Therefore, he viewed maintaining power and
    order as preferable to the chaos that would result without it.  In that
    instance, he was chosing the lesser of two evils.

Do you mean that we have had order - not chaos - in Digital so
Machiavelli doesn't apply?

--Ritva

    Machiavelli is one of the Political Scientists knows as from the
    'Real Politic' school of thought.    What he wrote is not exactly
    what he meant.   You have to take it into context.
    
    For example: he said 'The goal justified the means to attained it'.
    
                         'It is better to appear than to be (the real thing)'.
    
    			
    What Machiavelli is refering here is that people with power do this
    things to keep their power in times of chaos because they do not have
    leadership.    If you read these receipes literally, you tend to thing
    the guy was a tyrant, when he was not.

Re .0

>  What do they teach managers nowadays?



Nothing about managing a business.  Maybe how to get around in Digital, but
nothing else.  Just because someone has been able to manage a techinal project,
does NOT mean that they can manage a business.  This is important because each
unit (or whatever they are called today) are businesses that must be nutured. 

I would like to know how many people in mangement positions in Digital know
anything about run a business and building relationships with customers that
last more than a year.  I bet that less that 5% of Digital managers have ever
taken university classes in business management.  I feel that this is one of
the reasons we flounder the way we do.  It's really sad that a company with the
resources we have is in such a sorry state.

Basically, I think we're screwed.  And there is nothing that can be done in the
short term to change the way things are going.

Jim

    I was in a bookstore today at lunch.   There on the shelf in the
    "Business" department was Sun Tzu, under the title "The Art of
    Strategy".   (I have this translation and recommend it.)
    
    

    While we're dancing on the edge of the absurd... Ho Chi Minh developed
    an exceptional organization to address the issues of his day.  His
    strategy was designed around the cadre system, wherein there was local
    autonomy operating within organizational guidelines to achieve the
    goals of the entity.
    
    I think we call this 'empowerment' now. ;^)

    (IMHO)
    
    Most management books (and as a one-time University lecturer on the
    subject, my bookshelves groan increasingly each time I buy a new one) 
    usually are based on "business as it was" and have little reference to
    "business as it is".
    
    You could even use (and I have) the Bible as a management textbook as
    examples of specific problems.  
    
    Everything since then from the 15C Japanese martial arts treatises, to 
    the Chinese philosophical works,through Nicolo( the first management 
    consultant) to Sloan, Taylor,Drucker, MacGregor,Peters and so on, 
    and so on, and so on has had its share of disciples, both at time of 
    publishing and subsequently as new manager discover them. (Rather 
    like teenagers always believing that their generation invented sex). 
    
    IMHO "management books" exist to make flash-money for the publishers;
    to look good on manager's shelve; as a vehicle for consultants
    (internal and external) to gain more assignments.   Rarely, by
    themselves, do the books' recommendations help you to run your business
    any better.
    
    Which is why you employ "managers" rather than "supervisors".  Their
    job is to work out solutions for the grey problem areas between 
    documented processes.  
    
    Books can alert to what has worked in specific situations in the 
    past but rarely, by themselves, solve the new problems of today.
    
    So unless you like to drive your car by looking in the rear-view
    mirror, moderate your faith in ALL management books (except, of course,
    those by a one-time University lecturer now working in the computer
    industry :-))
    
    :-))
    
    John

    	The problem with management is at the root cause.    Where is the
    root cause, you may ask.    It is in all (most of them) B-schools.
    What they teach you there is NOT TO MANAGE.   They teach you text book
    scenarios that are steady and based on numbers and theories.   Only
    recently have B-schools include such things as J-I-T, TQC and Team
    Management.   But again is only theory, no actual practice is
    included.   So the poor new MBA ex-student have a lot of tools but
    doesn't know how to apply them in real life.    The other problem is
    that today's Organizations think that a MBA or even a BBA sometimes,
    means that they can give a bunch of subordinates to this 'rookie' and
    she/he can turn them around.    NOT !!!!!
    
    Some have argue that management is a combination of science and
    art, I agree.

    
    It always amazes me how certain managers obtained their postition in this
    company.  If these same "managers" were managing their own private
    business(externally) with the same business practices/work ethic that
    they demonstrate internally, they would probrably be OUT of business/
    bankrupt.
    
    rjs
    

    
    
    Strangely enough, one of the 5 managers I've had in the last 4 years
    actually had a business of his own at one time.  
    
    If what I saw while working for him was any indication...
    
    -Ed
    

    Well, yes, Machiavelli wrote a book that has become popular reading for
    those to the right of center.
    
    But, perhaps we should remember that Machiavelli himself was not a
    ruler.
    
    And, of course, his career ended in failure and disgrace. At least
    Marcus Aurelius had a bit of OJT.
    
    

    re:  .21
    
    Machiavelli's techniques taken by themselves are neither left nor
    right.  Most can be applied by leaders of any persuasion.
    
    He was not a ruler, but lived in a time when you had to be born rich
    and royal to have much chance of ruling.
    
    The statement that his words have no worth because he did
    not die a successful man is an ad hominum argument.
    
    His works were meant as a practical guide to power for a prince he
    hoped would be an agent for the general good -- given the alternatives
    available at that time, he believed in doing the best you can with what
    you have.

    In my college class they teach management courses and the books are
    well written and give wonderful examples of managers, what a managers
    job is, etc etc
    
    When being involved in the class discussion with other professionals I
    couldn't help notice we all said the same thing:  "Where is this place,
    and how can we get there Peter Pan?  It certainly isn't reality!"
    
    The other professionals were from AT&T, and other corporations, so it
    isn't just Digital where the management problem lies.
    
    
    I know that some Digital managers were taught that chaos and distrust
    were a great thing!  Turn your employees against each other by sitting
    them down one by one and saying, "Did you know so-and-so said this and
    that about you?"  So then you leave kind of angry at a co-worker, but
    if you are SMART!  You go to that co-worker and say, "Did you say thus
    and so about me?"  You'd be surprised how many looks of shock can cross
    the face of a co-worker as they say, "Heck no!  Who told you that?"
    
    Nothing like creating an environment of trust and comeraderie (sp?)
    
    Oh, am I going to get in trouble for speaking my mind here?  Probably
    so!
    
    -nameless
    

    Here's another observation... 
    
    
    'Heaven help British manufacturing'
    John Dwyer
    [without permission]
    
    '...the individuals, including managers, 
    who work in industry would like to see 
    full employment return.  But those who 
    own and run industry would prefer full 
    unemployment.  One reason for the 
    disparity of view may be that the captains 
    of industry are not, in a strict sense,
    responsible citizens.  They always know 
    someone who can find jobs for their 
    children.  They don't have any contact 
    with rundown public services and they 
    think they can avoid the social disorder 
    unemployment creates'.

    
    Hmm.. When I first came across that concept, Marx & Engels had
    written of it.  Ironically, Marx worked in the heartland of
    British capitalist industrialism, using resources which had
    been given to the people by philanthropic captains of industry.
    Bite the hand.

    What captains of the industries should remember though is, that
    he needs customers, his cutomers - if not end users - need customers
    and somewhere in the chain there are us as users of the industry's
    products. When we are unemployed, there is no customers......
    
    --Ritva
    

re .26:

Exactly.  History says to never count on industry collectively to do
anything wise whatever - even where their self interest is involved.
The current conditions are very similar to the "trading stamp" days
of the late 50's and early 60's.  If one company could do it exclusively,
it would work; but when all did, it was ust a lot of trouble.  Just
like the cost cutting mania.

Lew

    UK BBC Radio 4 - 13 March 1994
    
    In the 'Analysis' programme discussing corporate changes Michael Porter
    said:  "Continued downsizing is the fast road to destruction"