DEC’s “Other” Legacy
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEADERS

This chapter was published in DEC Is Dead, Long Live DEC: The Lasting Legacy of Digital Equipment Corporation, by Edgar H. Schein, Berrett Kohler Publishers, Inc., 2003.

Digital Equipment Corporation’s technical legacy is well known and widely respected. Its innovation in mini-computers and networking were the basis for the evolution of new ways of computing and the democratization of technology. But DEC also made other significant contributions to the larger community, technical and otherwise. Among them was a culture and approach to employee and leadership development that produced leaders at all levels of the organization. During their time at DEC, the talents and abilities of many employees were discovered, nurtured, developed, and honed, and they helped Digital become the technical and organizational powerhouse and much sought-after employer-of-choice that it was until the early 90s. Many of them were profoundly influenced by their experiences at DEC in ways that have had lasting impact. As these people left the company, first through normal turnover and attrition, and later by less voluntary means and in greater numbers, they went on to other companies and enterprises where many held positions of considerable influence, and they continued to make significant contributions. This is DEC’s other legacy.

During its lifespan, over 130,000 people were employed by Digital. Most went on to other work situations—in other established corporations, as entrepreneurs and consultants in private practice, as partners in start-ups, and to positions in education and community service, and with them they brought what they had learned. Their styles of leading, managing, and influencing, their approaches to work and innovation, and their beliefs about organizations and what is possible were all shaped by the DEC culture and their experiences as DEC employees. As it turned out, DEC’s unique culture had provided a perfect environment for the development of leadership ability and entrepreneurial behavior.

This chapter explores those aspects of the DEC culture that created this crucible or laboratory for leadership development, how it shaped both personal and professional development, and the lasting impact of these experiences. The stories of several former DEC employees illustrate the connection between the developmental effects of their years at Digital, their subsequent career choices, and the contributions they have made to other companies and the community at large. The material for this chapter is drawn from several sources: research that I conducted in 1986 about the developmental attributes and processes of transformational leaders, formal interviews with former employees, and anecdotal data from continued contact with former colleagues and clients.

Some Thoughts on Leadership and Leadership Development

Several key constructs are the basis for understanding what it was about DEC that contributed to the leadership development of so many of its employee and how it worked. The subject of leadership—what it is and isn’t, the related processes and dynamics, the results and outcomes—has been debated for centuries. In the late 70s and early 80s, some new formulations and definitions emerged, largely the work of James MacGregor Burns (1978), Bernard Bass and his colleagues at SUNY Binghamton (1985), Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus (1985), and Warren Bennis (1989). Their contributions are important because they differentiated management and leadership and described the attributes and effects of each; the work has been both enduring and relevant through the intervening years. As a result of their work, and for the purposes of this discussion, the terms transformational leader and leader and transactional leader and manager, respectively, are synonymous and used interchangeably.

The fundamental differences between managers and leaders are well summarized by Bennis and Nanus (1985):
There is a profound difference between management and leadership, and both are important. To manage means to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct. Leading is influencing, guiding in direction, course, action, opinion. The distinction is crucial. Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing. The difference may be summarized as activities of vision and judgment—effectiveness versus activities of mastering routines—efficiency. (p. 21, original emphasis)

The literature has also been clear and consistent about the attributes, roles, and contributions of leaders. In this formulation, relevant business and technical background and expertise is necessary but not sufficient—the price of admission, so to speak. It is leadership ability that is the differentiator of who will make significant, lasting, and transformational contributions to enterprises and communities. While this does not mean that managers don’t make important contributions, the sort of leadership that we’re talking about is more an orientation and a way of being than it is a set of skills or techniques. The key differences are summarized below in Table 7.1.

TABLE 7.1. Attributes of Transformational Leaders and Managers

Although there have been thousands of studies about the content, processes, and effects of leadership on both followers and organizations, much less is known about how leaders acquire the attributes associated with the transformational orientation, the effects of individual differences on leadership outcomes, and leaders’ on-going development processes. There are three key points to be made: First, development is assumed to refer to a process that occurs gradually and incrementally over time, across the entire life span of the individual. Therefore, it is important to look at critical events and influences that have taken place throughout a leader’s life when seeking to understand the process of leadership development.

Second, we know that one of the key functions of transformational leadership is the development of followers, so leaders are themselves agents of others’ development; however, a leader cannot facilitate the development of another beyond the developmental level that he or she has achieved. While leadership can therefore occur at all levels, the developmental level of the leader poses a constraint, and the continuous development of leaders is essential to ongoing and continuous transformation of both people and organizations.

Third, a review of both leadership and human development literature reveals seven factors that explain the origin, acquisition, and development of transformational leadership:

• Family Factors: Early experiences, especially those with parents, that are the basis for opportunities and events that contribute to the development of a personality structure that favors leadership ability.
• Once-Born Twice-Born: This theory was formulated by Zaleznik (1977) and encompasses aspects of both the Family Factors and Conflict and Disappointment factors. According to Zaleznik, people who are Once-Born made adjustments to life that were reasonably straightforward and their lives were mainly peaceful and harmonious with little discrepancy between expectations and reality. For those who are Twice-Born, life has been more of a struggle resulting in a sense of isolation, being special, wariness, and greater involvement in one’s inner world. Greater self-reliance, increased expectations of performance and achievement, and sometimes a desire to do great works are developed. It is leaders who are twice-born and developed by mastery, and managers who are once-born and developed by socialization.
• Conflict and Disappointment: This theme refers to the extent to which individuals have effective ways of dealing with conflict and disappointment in their lives. Those who deal effectively with conflict, face disappointments and resolve them, and engage in self-examination are more effective leaders.
• Developmental Tendencies: Leaders tend to move toward higher levels of development during their lives and appear to have engaged in both intra- and interpersonal development activities to a greater extent than non-leaders.
• Previous Leadership Experiences: Previous opportunities for leadership, often early in life, and the transferability of learnings from those experiences are factors in the development of leaders.
• Influence of Mentors: This theme pertains to the developmental effects of a strong interpersonal and professional coaching relationship between an older and/or more experienced individual and a more junior person in whom the mentor has taken a strong personal interest.
• Workshops and Events: This theme pertains to workshops, training events, and other formal or structured learning activities that purport to teach leadership skills or behaviors.

These interrelated factors include both events and influences of family and childhood and resulting developmental tendencies or predispositions as well as other more conscious or deliberate choices in service of developmental outcomes that occurred during the individual’s life-to-date, for example, leadership experiences, developmental events, and the influence of mentors. (For a more thorough discussion of these factors see Gibbons [1986] and Avolio and Gibbons [1988].)

What Was So Special About DEC?

Given this background on leadership development, we can now explore the unique combination of conditions, cultural attributes, operating principles, values, and management practices that prevailed at Digital and that resulted in an environment in which leadership development flourished.

A culture that was empowering. There is a list of rules of the road for how to succeed at DEC that are synonymous with the company. Anybody who ever worked there knows them, most still subscribe to them, and many wish that the workplaces of today were more like this. It is easy to make the list: they are a part of me, and the people whom I interviewed all routinely mentioned all or most of them when describing their experiences at DEC and those factors that impacted their career and leadership development (note that these characteristics mirror closely the ones identified in Chapter 6 as some of the core elements of DEC’s culture).

• See what needs to be done and do it; develop a vision for what you want to accomplish
• He/she who proposes does
• Do the right thing; don’t wait to be told what to do or how to do it
• Make it happen
• Push back if you don’t agree or think the “wrong” thing is happening
• Invest in and build trusting relationships
• Truth will be discovered through conflict and debate
• Keep/deliver on your commitments
• Get buy-in before moving forward, even in the face of conflict and competition; influence is the way to do this

The result was a place that on the one hand actively and explicitly valued diversity in many ways that were ahead of the times: encouraging experimentation, risk taking, and creativity; expecting and stimulating push back, debate, and questions about what didn’t make sense or seem right; hiring and promoting women and people of color; and formally supporting the exploration and understanding of differences of all kinds. On the other hand, DEC had a culture that was widely and well understood and embraced and set of norms that was practiced in relatively consistent ways. This paradox contributed to an ideal environment in which leadership ability could be recognized—oneself and others—and grown: the “rules” were about the importance and necessity of freedom and innovation, exercising influence, taking responsibility, debating the relevant issues on their merit, respecting and trusting others, and getting buy-in before moving forward. The meaning, origins, and evolution of each of these principles are elaborated in the preceding chapters.

From a leadership development perspective, it would be hard to live in such a culture and work this way over an extended period of time and not develop at least some leadership ability. For if we compare these “rules” to the list of attributes of transformational leaders found in Table 7.1, we see that there is a great deal of similarity and congruence between them. So it’s not a surprise that Digital was a laboratory for leadership development and that those who were successful at Digital also embodied and practiced those attributes.

Fast growth. From the mid-70s to the mid 80s, Digital enjoyed a period of extraordinary growth that provided unparalleled opportunity technically, professionally, and managerially. Employees changed jobs frequently, the result of both promotions and “growmotions”—taking on added responsibility or getting increased opportunities for innovation without a formal change in title, job level, or pay. Employees were encouraged to identify problems and needs and propose solutions, so there was a continuous supply of intellectual stimulation and endless outlets for creativity—more than enough to go around—which in turn continuously fueled the growth and provided challenging opportunities for the taking. Many new jobs were created during this time which resulted in large numbers of new hires. With this influx of newcomers, came the recognition that the culture and mores of DEC had to be formally transmitted, and many programs to do this were created. The importance of preserving the culture was on the minds of man, if not most, and current employees saw it as their responsibility to orient and integrate (and sometimes initiate) new people. Digital became the largest private employer in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and was seen as one of the most desirable places to work, for both technical and non-technical people alike, since the opportunities to innovate were not limited only to those who were designing minicomputers.

From a leadership development perspective, there were also plenty of opportunities for people to be in leadership situations and roles and to learn and grow in this arena. The system rewarded taking initiative in this way by providing more opportunities, both formal and informal, offering fast career growth, and delivering generous monetary rewards.

Recruiting, attracting, and hiring the best people—very carefully. During Digital’s fast growth cycles, the recruiting and attracting pretty much took care of themselves. DEC was seen as the place to work, and those who wanted a job there worked very hard to make contacts and get themselves hired. Again, there was considerable awareness that the fit between a prospective employee and the company’s culture was very important, and despite the need to fill jobs quickly, the screening and hiring processes were quite rigorous. A parody of the standard DEC print employment ad that circulated in the late 70s portrays both the heady arrogance and the rigor of the times. (See Figure 7.1)

FIGURE 7.1. Parody of a DEC Employment Advertisement

In fact, there was a willingness to hire people who were a good fit, even if they turned out not to be a good match for the opening for which they were being interviewed, and these candidates were quickly referred for other openings. Sometimes they were hired without a specific job and either encouraged to create a job for themselves or considered part of a talent pool and given the right job when it came along. DEC was clear that it needed technically and professionally talented and creative people who could make a contribution and that it was inviting membership in a family that could last for a very long time. Layoffs were then unheard of, and the average age of the employee population was twenty-eight. The prevailing belief was that if things weren’t working out in a particular job, once you were in the family, there would be a place for you to make that valuable contribution and you would be encouraged to find or create it.

What this resulted in was an employee population that was both self-selected and carefully screened before it was hired. Because DEC’s culture and reputation as an employer were well known in the local area and beyond, prospective employees could assess whether or not it was a place they wanted to work, and not everyone did want to. The research on the development of transformational leaders shows that there is a predisposition toward this orientation that has its origins early in life that is subsequently reinforced by oneself and others. Therefore, if an organization were to design a process for leadership development, it would make sense to seek participants who had this predisposition and motivation to engage in personal development. Given the overlap between the attributes of transformational leadership and the tenets of DEC’s culture, it would seem that DEC was, however inadvertently, screening and hiring such people.

Coming of age—personally and professionally—while at DEC. Many theories of human development subscribe to a model that says that certain developmental tasks are related to and typically occur during phases or stages of life and that there is a predictable sequence of developmental challenges through which we progress. The mastery of one task or level is a prerequisite for, and launches us into, the next level. The tasks associated with people in their twenties and thirties are focused primarily on differentiating from the family of origin, establishing an identity as an adult and creating a life and possibly a family of one’s own, developing mastery of work and career, “making it,” shifting the locus of evaluation and control from external to internal, and establishing a sense of personal and professional competence.

During the 70s and 80s, a very high proportion of the employee population at DEC ranged in age from their mid-twenties through their thirties, and during this time the population more than doubled. The employment tenure was long by today’s standards—often ten years or more. This large cohort then moved together through both an exciting time in DEC’s history and through the same age- and stage-related developmental tasks. The impact and effect of this convergence of events on future career choices, preferences for and ways of working, values about what it means to make a contribution, and definitions of what constitutes personal and professional competence and integrity cannot be overstated.

A high level of cultural attunement and alignment to DEC’s values and mores characterized the work environment. Because DEC was the largest employer, there was also a sense of community that extended beyond the workplace. Family members; parents of children’s friends; neighbors; members of community, religious, and social groups; and other clients of local service providers were often DEC employees. It was not unusual for all or most of one’s friends also to be Digital employees. Digital treated its employees with high regard, recognizing that people are different.

Flexibility, adaptiveness, and responsiveness to individual needs did much to bind people to the company, and most employees felt tremendously loyal in return. Overall, employees loved their jobs, the work they got to do, and the sense that they were making valuable contributions to an emerging and exciting industry. They were willing to go the extra miles, spending considerable time and energy in the service of Digital and their work there. Several of those whom I interviewed who left DEC voluntarily said, “Leaving DEC was the hardest decision I’ve ever made.” Today we might say that DECies had “no life.” But then, for many, life seemed well balanced and integrated, and they didn’t experience themselves as being exploited or disposable once they had been used up. It’s no wonder, then, that the relationships and connections made by many during their times at DEC are still important to them, even years later. As one alumnus said, “No one should misunderstand how important the DEC alumni connection is: once DEC, always DEC. It made a big impression on peoples’ lives.”

This was a system that was extraordinarily self-reinforcing. And it was in this milieu that people experienced the developmental activities, conscious and intentional or otherwise, that formed indelible and lasting values, beliefs, and behaviors that continue to define who they are and how they approach work and career. In the words of one, echoed by others, “I came of age at Digital.”

High value on individual development. Beyond the generally developmental culture and environment at DEC, there was specifically a high value placed on individual development-- personal, technical, and professional. From a leadership development perspective this is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it insured that employees received the formal training that was essential to being and keeping current in one’s field—be it technical or professional—and that is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for leaders. Second, it enabled considerable interpersonal, intrapersonal, and management development. Competence in these arenas is also essential to leadership development.

Digital expended considerable resources in this arena. It had an extensive internal employee and organization development capability that was well utilized and valued. A wide range of custom designed programs was created, augmented by a menu of courses and programs purchased from external vendors in support of development initiatives and individual needs. It also had a very generous tuition reimbursement plan that made it possible for many to receive academic degrees in their chosen fields so long as the proposed program could be related to their current work or the needs of the company. The health care plan provided access to therapy for those who wanted it, without the limitations that are typically imposed by the corporations, Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs), or heath plans of today. Many used this as a vehicle for personal development work which can be an important aspect of the development of transformational leaders. Digital was also a big customer of suppliers of personal development programs such as NTL Institute and the Center for Creative Leadership. Employees were encouraged to attend these programs, which made it easy for those who were so inclined to take advantage of numerous opportunities for development that would contribute to their leadership abilities.

There was at DEC a convergence of culture, values, resources, and rewards that created an environment in which leadership development could and did occur.

What Was Learned and How Was It Used?

The biographies feature the people whom I interviewed for this exploration of leadership development at DEC. They give a sense of people’s careers at DEC, their significant sources of impact and learnings, what they’ve done post-DEC, and the contributions they’ve made to their companies, professions, communities, clients, and customers. Their accomplishments are noteworthy and illustrative, but there were other criteria by which they were selected. Their entry into DEC, their career progression, the opportunities that came their way, and their experiences of the significance of their time at, and relationship with, the company were quite typical. Most of them came to DEC during their twenties and early thirties, starting out in entry or mid-level individual contributor or managerial positions. In this small sample, an effort was made to represent the variety of corporate functions as well as differences in gender, ethnicity, and nationality that characterized DEC. In keeping with the value that was placed on all forms of diversity, each of these people is a unique individual whose personality and life experiences shaped his or her development and practice of leadership while at DEC.

What they have in common is a particular mix of individual predisposition and motivation, that combined with the opportunities and environment afforded by the DEC culture to produce extraordinary leadership development and significant contributions both at DEC and beyond. And what they also have in common is their love of DEC and their recognition of, and appreciation for, the part it played in their lives and careers.

Three themes emerged from among them that describe the most lasting and impactful aspects and significant learnings from their years at DEC:

• Respectful and trusting relationships: Building and sustaining respectful and trusting relationships as the basis for working successfully with others, for transacting business, and for collaborating to achieve goals; supporting and growing other people.
• Freedom and opportunity: The empowering effect of being given freedom and opportunity; the invitation and expectation that you will see what needs to be done based on what is “right” for the company; following through, taking responsibility, engaging others, and being accountable for the results of your vision or proposal.
• Freedom to question assumptions: Questioning assumptions and pushing back; debating ideas, proposals, and products on their merit, despite inherent conflict; the belief that truth and the best path will emerge from this process; focusing on the content and not attacking or diminishing individuals.

This is, in the end, the lasting legacy and contribution of the Digital Equipment Corporation: thousands of people, shaped and impacted by these values and ways of working let loose on the world to influence others and make lasting contributions to technology, the practice of leadership and management, global enterprise, and the community at large.

Where Are They Now?

Gordon Bell

Gordon Bell worked at DEC from 1960 to 1966, leaving to teach at Carnegie Mellon University. He returned to DEC in 1972 as VP of Engineering and was there until 1983. During his time at Digital, was responsible for helping to develop the PDP family of minicomputers and was the architect of DEC’s VAX series, a set of products that transformed both the company and the computer industry. Indeed, it would be difficult to overstate Bell’s contributions to both Digital and the industry.

Gordon joined DEC at the beginning—three years after its founding—so he was more a shaper of the culture than one influenced by it. “I don’t think I ever thought about team creation or leadership. It evolved from the MIT environment; [it was] an engineering-scientific culture: question everything in an open environment…. We looked at multiple alternatives, worked to resolve conflict quickly, learned how not to personalize failure, and built on that.” He had learned the importance of finding the balance between being firm about something and destroying a personal relationship while working in his father’s electrical supply company as a boy.

It was hard to get buy-in for the VAX strategy, and it put him at odds with Ken Olsen. “I led from an understanding of the technology and what should be done from a technical strength point of view, and I was looking at it issue by issue. Ken and I disagreed. He was into options and playing them…. I made it happen, just kept on until the machines changed and the roles of the product lines changed.” But the stress took a toll, and Bell had a heart attack and soon after left the company.

His years and experience at DEC enabled Bell to develop a heuristic, rule-based model for building products, an approach that says that most appropriate next step or solution to a problem will emerge as a result of learning or experience in the preceding steps: “The product decides the rules, not people. People have to organize to enable the product to work and be built.”

Since leaving DEC, Bell has continued to make innumerable contributions to the industry. He did work at the National Science Foundation that pulled together all the computing research and also led the cross-agency group that created the strategy by which the internet was put in place. “I foresaw the idea of the network and saw what the structure might mean but not what it might turn into. Three hundred people missed what it could enable!”

He has been involved with sixty-five start ups as an angel investor. In 1988 he established the Gordon Bell Award to recognize significant achievements in high performance computing. He has published several books and was involved in the establishment of the Computer History Museum at Moffett Field in Mountain View, California.

Since 1991, first as an advisor and now as an employee, he has worked with Microsoft on future development efforts, continuing his presence at the forefront of computer technology.

Crawford Beveridge

A native of Edinburgh, Crawford Beveridge came to Digital in 1977 following ten years at Hewlett Packard in Europe and the US. While at DEC, he oversaw the establishment of European manufacturing sites and then was personnel manager for Europe.

“At HP, I learned about management, and at DEC I learned about leadership.” The assumption at DEC was that everyone should and would do what’s right, not wait to be told what to do or how to do it. At HP and other places he’s worked, there were manuals and policies, and he recognized the importance of developing trusting relationships and a trust-based culture that enabled people to make mistakes without the fear of being fired for it. “DEC was a humane place that looked after peoples’ concerns…. It was a commonwealth, not an empire. No one insisted on anything. It was the goodwill of individuals that made entities work…. It loosened me up: I realized that it wasn’t about policy manuals, it was about vision, enabling, clearing barriers, and supporting talent. It rebuilt my head about how to apply what I knew…. [There were more] degrees of freedom and fewer constraints.”

In 1982, Beveridge was recruited by Analog Devices. “Nothing about DEC made me leave…I concluded that I wanted to run my own shop, and this was a VP-level position in a smaller company…. DEC was a coming-of-age for me.”

Beveridge has done two tours at Sun Microsystems. From 1985 to 1991, he was VP of Corporate Resources which included responsibility for human resources (HR), management information systems (MIS), real estate, purchasing and logistics, security, and corporate affairs. During his tenure, company sales grew from $100 million to $3 billion, while the employee population increased from eight hundred to over twelve thousand. He returned in 2000 as VP and chief human resources officer. “If I’d come (straight) from HP to Sun, I wouldn’t have made it.”

In the intervening nine years, Beveridge went home to Scotland where he was CEO of Scottish Enterprise, the economic development organization for Scotland. At this 1700-employee, $800 million organization, he was responsible for business development, infrastructure development, skill building, and venture capital. “I realized that I could be a chief executive. I marshaled all my skills and learnings, especially leadership skills from DEC, to loosen up a government organization.”

Beveridge is a member of several boards of directors, including Autodesk, Memec, Scottish Equity Partners, and Young Enterprise Scotland.

Peter DeLisi

Pete left IBM to come to Digital in 1977 and stayed for sixteen years. Among the positions he held were product line manager for the Distributed Data Processing Group, sales training manager, and several in the field services organization.

After leaving DEC, he started his own consulting company, Organizational Synergies, specializing in strategy development. DeLisi credits his success with his company to what he learned at DEC about being an entrepreneur and running a business.

Coming to DEC after years in parochial schools, a Jesuit college, the military, and IBM, DeLisi said was, “a culture shock—no one telling you what to do…I’d never been anywhere where I hadn’t been told what to do.” At DEC, he learned the importance of team, family, collaboration and buy-in. He came to appreciate the power and value in seeing what needed to be done—not in what was assigned--proposing it, and doing it, and in so doing leveraging talent and a unique vantage point. “When you get a group working together this way, you can have tremendous impact and results…it broadened my vision of what’s possible.”

Having learned that “He who proposes does,” DeLisi was emboldened by this imperative, and he has made many proposals since leaving DEC that have benefited his company and his clients. One of these proposals led to a part-time position at Santa Clara University where he is now academic dean of the Information Technology Leadership Program.

Barry James Folsom

Barry James Folsom worked at DEC in the early 80s as the manager of the Rainbow (PC) Development Group. Of his time at Digital he says, “Professionally, this was the best time in my life…. it was the foundation for me and my career.”

Major learnings included the importance of having a vision with passion and energy, never giving up despite naysayers, the importance of improvising and changing the rules, of being flexible, and of creating the foundation for sustainability. “Part of leadership is getting people to go there, and also sustaining it. There are lots of houses of cards lately. [I learned that] you have to build a foundation that can sustain growth and then decide where you can and can’t take short cuts…. I also learned about risk management and always had a contingency plan, and I got it agreed to by those involved in it ahead of time.”

Folsom left DEC for Sun Microsystems where was a member of the corporate management team during its growth from $100 million to $1.7 billion in sales. He is currently chairman of the board at PlaceWare, a web conferencing company whose bookings have grown from $3 million to $50 million since he arrived as CEO in 1997. Prior to taking his current position, he did several start ups and turn-arounds, including previous positions as president at Spectrum Holobyte where revenues grew from $13 million to $70 million in a year and CEO of Radius where he also turned it around in one year, growing revenues by 50 percent.

Kevin Melia

A native of Ireland and an accountant by training, Kevin Melia joined Digital at the manufacturing plant in Galway in 1972 and moved to the United States in 1976. DEC was one of the first companies to locate a plant in Ireland, and for Kevin it was “like a university, a window to the world,” offering opportunities for which he is still grateful to Ken Olsen. He held a variety of positions in finance, logistics, purchasing, and materials. His last position at Digital was VP of materials in which he transformed the company’s approach to supply chain management (SCM, before it was called that).

Though he believes that by the late 80s DEC was twenty years ahead in SCM (and he still uses what he learned and experimented with at DEC), it was his frustration with the inability to make additional changes that he felt were essential to DEC’s survival that led to his departure after being recruited by Sun Microsystems in 1989. There, as VP of worldwide operations, he saw an opportunity to do many of the things he couldn’t at DEC and encountered less resistance to creating a globalized, “lean” manufacturing operation that relied on outsourcing. During his time at Sun, he also became CFO and president of Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation.

In 1994, back in Boston, Kevin co-founded (with Bob Graham, also a Digital alumnus) Manufacturers Services Limited (MSL), a global, full service electronic manufacturing service provider for OEMs. By acquiring the OEMs’ own manufacturing plants and producing their products more efficiently, he grew the company from zero to $1.5 billion in revenues in six years, making it one of the largest firms in this business.

About how his experience at DEC helped prepare him for MSL, Kevin said, “DEC was a very entrepreneurial company which grew very fast. It gave me a taste for taking on responsibility.” In 2000, MSL opened a facility in Galway.

Dorothy Terrell

Dorothy Terrell came to DEC in 1977 from the not-for-profit sector, starting as training manager in the Westminster final assembly and test manufacturing facility. She quickly moved up through a succession of plant and group personnel positions, and in 1984 became the plant manager for the Boston manufacturing facility. “Even at DEC, it was an unusual opportunity to go from personnel to a high level line management job.” And, even at DEC, more unusual for an African-American woman. In 1988, in what was another “unusual opportunity, a chance of a lifetime,” she relocated to Silicon Valley to start up the Cupertino plant where the VAX 9000 would be manufactured.

About the most impactful aspects of her career at DEC, Terrell said, “I joined DEC at the best possible time and place—the late 70s in Westminster and in final assembly and test. DEC was growing again, and it was exciting. All the pieces [of the company] came together [in Westminster].” Echoing a familiar theme, she also recalled that people were given opportunities to do different things that went beyond what a position or job might suggest. “People saw more in me at that time; things I didn’t see in myself. They looked for talent and gave you as much as you could stand.” Manufacturing, even more than in other parts of DEC, paid attention to differences of all kinds (not just the obvious ones) and their impact on individual and organizational capability and productivity. In addition to her own learnings from the many innovative programs in this arena that were developed at DEC, Terrell also influenced, led, and contributed significantly to others’ understanding of and transformation about issues of race and gender.

By 1991 Terrell and her staff had succeeded against difficult odds in bringing the VAX 9000 to market, but the product wasn’t selling, and the first non-voluntary downsizing in the history of Digital occurred in Cupertino. Although she recognized that downsizing was “the right thing to do” for the company, Terrell described this experience as one of the most wrenching things she has ever done. At that moment, she realized that DEC would never be the same.

Later that year, she left to become the president of Sun Express at Sun Microsystems where she started Sun’s worldwide aftermarket and on-line services business unit, joining several other former DECies on the executive staff. In six years, she grew it to $300 million in revenues, expanding into eleven countries. “DEC was preparation for Sun, Cupertino [because it was in Silicon Valley] even more so. I couldn’t have hit the ground running at Sun without Cupertino,” and it helped to have other DEC people to call on. She had also learned at DEC that the people whom you hire are the key ingredient and that surrounding yourself with talented people who also understand the importance of relationships and trust are essential to success.

In 1997, Terrell moved to NMS Communications, a telecom infrastructure and services provider. There she was senior VP of both corporate operations and world wide sales and president of platforms and services. About her diverse range of responsibilities she said, “I did so many different things at DEC—big different things. That was part of the opportunity. I was empowered to do them.” During her tenure at NMS she drove a 100 percent increase in year over year revenue. In 2001, Terrell was recognized as one of Technology’s Most Remarkable Women by Upside Magazine and one of the 50 Most Important African-Americans in Technology by the editors of blackmoney.com.

Recently retired, Terrell is a member of many community and corporate boards, including General Mills, Sears, Roebuck, Herman Miller, the Commonwealth Institute, the Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Massachusetts Software Council.

Fred Traversi

Fred Traversi came to DEC in 1979, following five years at General Electric (during which he took a year off to obtain an MBA from Harvard). Since leaving DEC in 1994, he has held senior positions at Taco Bell and Lexmark and is now president and CEO of AdvizeX Technologies. “And [of all of these,] DEC was the most influential in shaping my management and leadership philosophy and approach.”

Key learnings that Traversi took with him to subsequent positions included the benefits of decentralized decision making and local option; applications of business process discipline (business process discipline is determining a standard, repeatable way of performing a particular activity or process that gets a consistent result); the importance of solid, trusting relationships to getting things done; the usefulness of constructive tension and conflict; and the effectiveness of giving people the freedom to see what needs to be done and the opportunity to do it without a complicated approval process.

While VP of operations at Taco Bell, he introduced the structure and processes for decentralized decision making that enabled regions to operate in ways that better matched their local markets. He also opened restaurants in each geography to test new concepts and products, enabling faster new product introductions.

Traversi summarized the impact of his tenure at DEC: “My most significant personal and professional relationships are from the DEC years. None from other companies are still important.”

Tracy Gibbons

After a first career as a program director and branch executive for the YMCA, Tracy came to DEC in 1977. Starting as an employee and organization development specialist in the Westminster final assembly and test facility, she held a variety of positions as organization development consultant and manager. In 1989 and 90, while a member of the Corporate Organization Consulting Group, she worked with the plant manager and staff in Cupertino, California to start up the manufacturing facility for the VAX 9000.

While at Digital, Gibbons earned a Ph.D. in Human and Organization Systems at the Fielding Graduate Institute. Her research investigated and modeled the developmental origins and processes of transformational leaders. “It was my experience at DEC that piqued my curiosity about both organization transformation and leadership, and it provided both the opportunity and an amazing laboratory in which to study both.”

In 1991, Gibbons joined Advanced Micro Devices as senior organization development consultant where she worked for several years with DEC alumnus Bob Krueger to create a team-based engineering and marketing organization. It was also there that she began to discover and appreciate that the work that she and her HR and OD colleagues had done at DEC was—and continues to be—state-of-the-art. “We had enormous freedom and encouragement to innovate. The work I did and what I learned while I was at DEC is still the foundation for my practice, especially the stuff about complex, interdependent, matrixed organizations. What DEC was doing twenty or more years ago is still new to some of my clients.”

In 1997, Gibbons realized a longtime career goal of being in private practice as a consultant. She is now President of CoastWise Consulting, a bicoastal firm that focuses on creating competitive advantage by leveraging the power of organization design, strategic alignment, and collaboration.

Resources

Avolio, B.J. & Gibbons, T.C. (1988). Developing transformational leaders: A lifespan approach. In Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N.(Eds.), Charismatic Leadership: The elusive factor in organization effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. NY: The Free Press.

Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. NY: Harper and Row Publishers.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. NY: Harper and Row Publishers.
Gibbons, T.C. (1986). Born vs. made: Toward a theory of development of transformational leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Fielding Graduate Institute.

Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, May, June 1977, pp. 67-78.

Back to the Resource Index