All change

Posted by The CEO on Thu, 18/02/2010 - 09:59 in Blogs 2063 11 comments | report

February 18 – Hard to keep up with this week.

#1 has gone. Her two deputies are staying – they have both withdrawn their notice. Their new employer to be is going to be annoyed!

What was not clear to me was just how much #1 was not enjoying her work – which became clear when she spoke to Office about going. There was complete relief on her part apparently at not having to rebuild the department. She’d rather go than face that. She’s looking for a smaller company, lower pay and a quieter time apparently. Which is fine – good luck, I say. And she even agreed the deal after seeing a solicitor and paperwork is virtually done.

The management team did meet on Tuesday, and then had to do so again (using teleconferencing) on Wednesday. My reaction to the news was immediate. AM has been promoted to FD responsible for all admin and IT functions in the company, and finance, new acquisitions and acting as joint deputy in ,my absence alongside East who is in charge of all operations. AM is delighted; East seems pleased #1 has gone – she having been a source of continual recurring embarrassment for him after their affaire.

The former deputy to #1 now becomes chief accountant, which is however a downgraded role, reporting to AM, not me. It is AM who has responsibility for producing data for the company now.

And East’s deputy moves to control the divisions previously run part time by AM.

I admit to considerable satisfaction at this. It’s been quick; the cost of getting rid of #1 is covered by savings overall, and the new management structure means I have, in effect just two people reporting directly to me now. Office now works alongside and effectively for AM whilst Hitchin and North work alongside but effectively for East. All of which is a pre-condition in reality of my new role working.

And the year end should not be disrupted – with the accounts team now pretty much restored and seemingly happy to be back.

Reshuffles done – I’d like this to survive for some time, because it does now feel that with the clear out of two team members (Newc and #1) the management team is the right size for the reality we now face.

Comments

Oh that's all right then

Anonymous | Thu, 18/02/2010 - 10:42 | Permalink

How nice for East to be spared some embarrassment. Anyone would think #1 had twisted his arm into their fling.

Are you sure?

Anonymous | Thu, 18/02/2010 - 11:06 | Permalink

Are you sure AM is 'right' for her new role? How much support will she get from you initially?

Mystery FD?

cverrier | Thu, 18/02/2010 - 11:34 | Permalink

So...maybe AM in her new role could start blogging as 'The FD' now - and charting her thoughts as she succeeds in ousting that pesky CEO and taking his job...

Oh, hang on...

"My reaction to the news was immediate."

Anonymous | Thu, 18/02/2010 - 12:47 | Permalink

Well, isn't this precisely your problem when dealing with people ?

Nanny doesn't turn up for work one day - get the P45 ready...

Two people resign - major departmental reshuffle needed...

.

Anonymous | Thu, 18/02/2010 - 13:15 | Permalink

The reaction was immediate as I feel that the CEO had been getting his ducks in a row for some time - possibly since the liaison between #1 and East (although East seems to have suffered no such adverse reaction ......).

It appears that #1 was given little support in her role and when a mistake was made there was a complete over reaction and any authority that she had was effectively taken away.

Maybe the other 2 in the department took advantage of this ? - it will be interesting to see how they react now with regards to the new FD (and also as one of them is the new Chief Accountant - divide and conquer or cause further problems ?).

I also found the earleir comments about #1 and her reaction the recent meetings rather distasteful - she obviously knew what was coming and merely wanted a quick and easy resolution (lucky for the CEO as I would be looking at long term sickness absence due to work related stress followed by an ET for constructive dismissal).

Sorry CEO, I sort of admire your honesty in your blog, but you have gone down in my estimation as a manager and a person.

Sorting problems

Rammstein | Thu, 18/02/2010 - 15:57 | Permalink

It appears that the CEO had a problem and sorted it. #1 wasn't happy in her job and will be happier elsewhere, plus she gets a nice pay-off. Very well handled I say, keep it up!

The missing sub plot

Peter Bonetti | Thu, 18/02/2010 - 16:19 | Permalink

Seems to me that the important bit was the dissatisfaction #1 was feeling. It was something of which we weren't really aware.

Sounds rather like everyone has come out of this happier and I would be reluctant to criticise too much given our distance from events and the fact that much goes on that we know nothing about.

Like the idea of the FD blog though. The CEO can assure her he doesn't read it as she has done for him :-)

I hope that there was a proper compromise

anzanijohn | Thu, 18/02/2010 - 17:08 | Permalink

As in a legally binding compromise agreement. Otherwise this saga may not yet be concluded.

I realise that the CEO may simply be reporting East's reaction rather than endorsing it. However, I share the views of some of the recent comments concerning what could have been East's involvement in the exit of the person with whom he had an affair. The story could fairly easily be retold as "the men ganging up to rid themselves of a woman who having been used was now 'a source of continual recurring embarrassment'". Who knows how a tribunal may have reacted to that version?

I hope that #1 does regard it as a good development. I also hope the CEO finds time to reflect on this and some of the other aspects of his recent management of the finance department.

Disclosure of blog posts

Anonymous | Fri, 19/02/2010 - 15:25 | Permalink

This seems to be ending well for all concerned, but it could easily have gone pear-shaped. I wonder if an Employment Tribunal would require disclosure of blog posts. Disclosure of e-mail in litigation has been a bug-bear for may years: many people treat e-mail more like the spoken word than the written word, but they hang around in archives for years. Loosely-worded or careless remarks can be very compromising when taken out of context, months or years later.

The moral(s) of the story

Mike Truman | Fri, 19/02/2010 - 15:46 | Permalink

It's worth looking back at what The CEO said during the initial #1 crisis - http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/item/176603

A couple of posts back he said the moral of the story was that when someone causes a crisis in their trial period, get rid of them. What the old posts make clear is that The CEO was very offended by #1's private morals - or lack of them - but felt that he should not let that affect his decisions about work.

It takes two to tango, but the crucial difference between #1 and East, as shown in the original posts, is that East came and said he had made a terrible mistake and asked for help to sort it out; #1 was embarrassed but said nothing. Regular readers will know that, for all his undoubted faults (first in the queue with a stone, anyone...?) the CEO is a values-driven, moral man, and it should be no surprise that he couldn't really get past this.

And it's arguable whether he should; who is to say that the disregard for someone's married status, and for the problems that an affair would undoubtedly cause a colleauge, and the breakdown in relationship with other staff don't all stem from the same character trait? Certainly from this distance, and with the necessary limitations on what The CEO can say to us, we can't.

Two to Tango !

Anonymous | Fri, 19/02/2010 - 16:50 | Permalink

The following comments are cut / pasted from comments made by the CEO on his 21/12/07 blog :

I have a replacement who I have to ask (indirectly) not to come to an event she should have been at. I know I will have to spend Christmas musing about whether this really makes her position sustainable. I already think I know the answer. However good she is (and she is) and however likeable she is (and she is, too much so it seems) can I really rely on someone with such lack of discretion?

And will East recover from this?

Well it looks as though East did recover from the episode, but #1 did not (or was not allowed to).

At the time, East was married but #1 was not (did #1 know of East's marital status on the night in question ?).

#1's discretion was questioned, but not East - why is this ? surely it takes "two to tango" ?

Either way, it looks as though all moral indignation was pointed towards one person only.

Add comment