[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::digital

Title:The Digital way of working
Moderator:QUARK::LIONELON
Created:Fri Feb 14 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:5321
Total number of notes:139771

3364.0. "Up the Corporate Ladder" by BABAGI::CRESSEY () Wed Aug 31 1994 14:04

In another recent note someone referred to some people as 'climbing the Corporate
ladder.'

When I see/hear that phrase, I think of someone who is seeking success by being
a manager.  Doesn't everybody use it that way? 

Some people should do go into management.  Others shouldn't

DEC/Digital has a problem with a bloated management structure.  People  have 
been saying that for about twenty years.  I think they are right.

While there are many reasons a company can end up with a bloated management
structure, I think these three pretty much cover the situation at Digital:

1.  Equating career success with entry into management.

2.  Promoting outstanding Individual Contributors into management as
    a reward for past service, instead of as a challenge about future service.

3.  Treating management as a more complicated problem than it really is.

First, there's a tendency in all corporations to view the Chiefs as more
successful than the Braves.  They generally (but not always) make more money,
they wield more influence (or power, as the case may be), and most signicantly
managers are the main arbiters of what constitutes success.  Digital has been
good in this regard, but not good enough.

Second, after an IC has reached the pinnacle of "Principal Corporate Consulting
Grand Imperial Wizard", what's left?  Why, management of course.  So we tend
to make some people managers, not because they will make good managers, but
because that's the only way left to say "we value you, and we want to 
express that even more strongly."  Some of the people thus promoted never
recover.

Third, I think Digital has always treated the management question as the ultimate
Engineering question:  How do you engineer a company?  Now great engineering is
simple engineering, but good engineering is merely "sophisticated", not wise
enough to be simple.  Now I'll never agree with what I think GH meant by
"anyone can come up with a schedule".  I happen to think that there's a lot
to good scheduling, or packing, or planning, or finance.  (The underlying
mathematics to all of these are amazingly similar).  But I think that digital
managed to make management, especially middle managemnt, look more complex
than it really is.

Middle management is under collapse everywhere in the '90s.  Some of the 
scheduling busywork has been reduced to clerical activity, and automated.
Some of the message relaying function has been replaced by things like
the DVN and employee surveys.  So fewer middle managers are needed to accompish
the same ends.

Now having a lot of excess managers is worse than having a lot of excess
janitors in at least two ways.  Not only do managers cost more than janitors do,
but they don't handle the situation as well as janitors do when they realize
that there are too many of them.  What janitors generally do when there are
too many of them is quietly loaf a little while looking busy.  This does no
harm beyond wasting some salary money.  A manager's work consists
of influencing they way other people work.  So when managers feel the need
to "look busy", they issue a lot of unnecesary and at times conflicting
directives.  This not only wastes their time, but also, much worse,
misdirects the efforts of those who perform primary work.  That's a
recipe for genuine disaster.

The hard part is fixing the situation.  Some people in this conference
have badmouthed the entire practice of managers returning to IC jobs.  I
think they've gone too far. Some managers should return to IC work. You don't
want to fire the managers in such a way as to discourage ICs that should 
go into management from doing so ut of fear of endangering their careers.
And finally,  who has to decide which management slots are superfluous?

"Well, that's a management decision, my boy".  Do you see the problem?

Dave
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
3364.1Manager AND IC are compatibleKELVIN::SCHMIDTCynical OptimistWed Aug 31 1994 18:1629
    
        A couple of reasons for people to go into management:
    
            Engineers tend to get promoted too quickly to Principal, 
            and then hit a big wall to try to get to Consultant 
            (Review Board:  justification, support letters, etc.). 
            There's no such barrier in the management track; maybe 
            if there were, then there would be fewer or more qualified 
            managers.
    
            Managers are usually part of any decision process.  How 
            many ICs do you see in the committees, review groups and 
            staff, the ones that pass down the decisions that so many 
            of us compain about?
    
    
        BTW, being a manager and IC is not incompatible.  A number of 
        us do both.  In fact, it's enjoyable to do both, although that 
        tends to add up to more than 100% of one's time.  Kind of a 
        foot in both camps.
    
    
        Finally, what type of manager are we considering here, because 
        they do different things:  administrative/supervisory, project, 
        program?
    
    
        Peter
3364.2TOHOPE::REESE_KThree Fries Short of a Happy MealWed Aug 31 1994 20:024
    .0	Excellent analogy; also a very accurate description of The
    	Peter Principle :-(
3364.3SNOFS1::POOLEOver the RainbowWed Aug 31 1994 22:5312
    In the old days there was talk about the 'Star Career Development
    Program'.  (At least that's what I think it was called.
    
    Anyway, the basic idea was that a person's career would toggle back and
    forth between People Manager and Individual Contributor.  I think the
    idea was to keep people in touch.  Keep management in touch with the
    trenches; and keeping the doer bees in touch with why we're in
    business.
    
    Just a thought,
    
    Bill
3364.4 The Peter Perscription DEMON::PILGRM::BAHNCuriouser and Curiouser ...Thu Sep 01 1994 00:0717
    Re: .2 and .3

    In one of his latter books, "The Peter Perscription,"  Lawrence
    Peter suggests ways that the individual can avoid getting caught up
    in the "Peter Principle."  One remedy is for the IC to recognize
    when he's approaching his "level of incompetence" ... and to refuse 
    the promotion.  Dr. Peter even suggested lateral or even downward 
    movement as a method for the less perceptive to use to get out of 
    an already-attained incompetence level.

    Toggling back and forth between IC and Manager might be another 
    approach.  At the very least, it might be a way for an IC to learn 
    whether or not management is a good career path.

    Terry
3364.5Be a manager or not to beIDEFIX::65296::sirenThu Sep 01 1994 07:0625
Re .0

There is a downside in being/having a manager, who does also IC work.

As a manager, you may end up doing the least interesting things, which do not 
fit to the comptence/role of any of the members of your group. That's what
happened to me, when I was a manager.

And there is a possibility to opposite to happen as well. The manager doing
some IC work can also pick the pieces s/he wants from the coming assingments,
and can see people working for her/him as possible competitors, which may
make co-operation less rewarding for people working in the group.

Re .2 .3 .4

I enjoy more customer work / technical work than people management, so I
decided to try a consultant role for a change. Believe me, in real life,
there are plenty of non-technical aspects in this change. If you have a 
choice, be very careful in selecting  your job, your environment and your 
manager to avoid unnecessary burdens beyond the ones created by need to learn 
and need to adapt. Lots of problems are coming from a fact, that many people 
do not believe, that being a manager is not an ultimate goal of everybody.

--Ritva
3364.6who suffers most?ANNECY::HOTCHKISSThu Sep 01 1994 07:226
    re .0
    it might be poignant to note that some of the people 'managed' never
    recovered either-my sympathies do not go out ot the poor managers
    who were forced to do the job.Until we have principals and means of
    assessing true people management and motivational skill our business
    will continue to suffer.
3364.7It ain't necessarily so...SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MABlondes have more Brains!Thu Sep 01 1994 11:3617
    
    Climbing the corporate ladder does not always have to mean switching
    from an IC to a manager role, with or without the competency to do so. 
    I view myself as on the climb, having stepped out of my 11-year-old
    secretarial chair 2 years ago.  I am now in a sales/sale support role,
    but not considered an IC (contrary to reality, my position is
    considered operational).  My next step, if I chose to take it, could
    be into a true IC spot (MCS Sales of one sort or the other), but then
    again, it might not.  
    
    I do not view myself as people management material, but rather
    (non-technical) project management.  I have no specific training for it, 
    but do it very well.  I guess 11 years of babying the people I
    supported and organizing other people's work prepared me very well! :)
    
    M.
3364.8What kind of management?BABAGI::CRESSEYFri Sep 02 1994 13:3215
	Re: .1

	You make some very good points.  There's only one part I have trouble
	with...


        >>Finally, what type of manager are we considering here, because 
        >>they do different things:  administrative/supervisory, project, 
        >>program?

	Why is it better to have several types of manager than just one?
	(Am I the *only* person in Digital who has trouble with this concept?)

	Dave
3364.9Climbing to what?MUNDIS::SSHERMANSteve Sherman @MFRMon Sep 05 1994 10:2128
What the climb is all about is a function of one's own notions of
job satisfaction.  To me, the climb is about reaching a position
that allows me to use my abilities to the maximum with a maximum
of independence.  That sounds like what Marla is talking about,
a couple of replies back.  It took me about 15 years to reach that
point, where maturity and experience caught up with talent.  That's
why there's a barrier to the consultant levels:  it takes more than
longevity to fill the job description.

I've been at essentially the same level for 10 years and am perfectly
contented.  My manager knows that the customer I consult for is in
good hands and lets me alone.  The customer is happy with the work
I do for him; I wish he were as happy with the rest of Digital.

Obviously, not everybody is going to be satisfied with this career path.
My manager jumped off the technical side because he figured he'd go
farther with his talents on the managerial side; probably he's right.
Marla gives up a secretarial position for the uncertainties of sales;
on the short haul, at least, she's probably reduced her influence.  It's
a gutsy move, and I wish her well.  The upside on the long haul is of
course very high, and one possible turning of the road leads to
management.  Somewhere in this conference (the Marketing vs. Sales
topic?) someone asserts that too few of our managers have sales
experience.  I've seen companies where the reverse is true, but I
have no doubt that our management has too little touch with the field.
Something to think about, Marla, eh?

Steve
3364.10The different kinds of mgrs.KELVIN::SCHMIDTCynical OptimistFri Sep 09 1994 13:2619
    
    
        Re:  .8
    
        Sorry I didn't get back to respond until now about the 
        different kinds of managers:  supervisory/administrative 
        vs. program/project.
    
        The implicit point, the one I should have made, is that 
        it can take different skills to drive programs/projects 
        to schedules, costs and deliverables than to guide and 
        mentor individuals.  Some people can do both; some are 
        better at one than the other.
    
    
        Peter