Under review

Posted by The CEO on Mon, 15/02/2010 - 09:28 in Blogs 1612 5 comments | report

February 14 – More Sunday reflection time. As I predicted, I slept on the idea of starting a formal review of the staffing of our accounts department on Thursday night and having done so, and after quick call to the Chairman on Friday morning, began the process.

I could not involve East, AM or Office in the discussions. It seemed crazy to drag Hitchin or North in, so my PA sat in on all meetings as my witness and I covered my backside by asking all three people I spoke to on Friday to have a witness with them, if they wished one. #1 did not. Her numbers 2 and 3 chose each other, which somewhat simplified matters!

In each case I could not have been clearer: what I was doing was considering the future staffing of the department in the light of the substantial change that now appeared inevitable. And in each case I stressed, of course, that it was job roles, not people that were being reviewed. But everyone says that, don’t they?

The reality was that although I stuck firmly to the script the reactions were not quite as I predicted. I’d hardly expected #1 to be pleased but the reality was she was livid, and let it show. She demanded to know why I had not spoken to her in advance, why I was undermining her with staff who had already resigned and how dare I think it had anything to do with her? I let her vent her feelings whilst my PA took notes – which angered her even more. I have to say she really did not help her cause. When I eventually thought she’d calmed down enough I suggested that one of my intentions was to see if the company needed to now have a finance director and a separate chief accountant, who would, however inevitably havce a role different to that she now played she for a moment looked struck dumb.

“Am I in line for the FD’s role?” she asked. Clearly she could apply for it, I told her, thinking after what had just happened she probably did not have a snowball’s chance of getting it. I’m pretty sure she knew it too.

As for her deputies their position was clear: they felt the department needed major reorganisation; a clearer service related role (of the sort I admit I always considered it had when I was in charge) and a stronger commercial interaction with the rest of the business by having a team leader who played a much stronger role in business decision making, as I had again done in my time. If that was to happen they’d both stay theysaid. My PA was right: they’re leaving because of #1.

Can I salvage something from this? I have to see, but my plan now is to take this to a senior management team meeting on Tuesday and open up the whole issue for discussion with them. Because #1’s role is under review she’ll be asked if she wants to attend or not, but I won’t exclude here: that would be quite wrong.

If I get agreement from the rest of the team new job specs that I’ve been working on today will be rolling out as the basis for recruitment, internally and (I think, necessarily, externally as well) within days. This review is not going to be protracted. In which case it’s a shame #1 rather blew her chance to make initial positive input into it.

Comments

Shakes head

Anonymous | Mon, 15/02/2010 - 10:12 | Permalink

You have undermined #1.

You did so from the moment you treated her like an infant over the bank reconciliation, and you continue to do so.

She's not stupid, and she can clearly see that you're out to get her. Because you are out to get her. You're not going into this process with an open mind. It's a fix.

You created this situation, and your only solution for dealing with it is to get rid of #1 by hook or by crook.

I'd be very careful how you go on here because it's looking like a case of constructive dismissal.

Not sure

Anonymous | Mon, 15/02/2010 - 12:24 | Permalink

It doesn't feel like a fix to me. That said, having been on both sides of reorganisations & 'reviews' in the past, it is widely belived that there is usually some motive or target in terms of the specific individual departures that result.

I can identify a little with #1's reaction. For those of us that are fortunate enough to have progressed in our careers (and there is always a little luck involved) it is easy to forget how we felt as junior managers or supervisors. Having worked hard to achieve a little recognition and a position of superiority, we might feel that grouping us together with the teams we look after when it comes to significant announcements & changes ignores the 'chain of command'.

That daid. how someone reacts in these circumstances is within their control and can be very telling...

I'll keep reading avidly to see what comes next.

Has anyone considered selling the movie rights to this?

Shakes head

Peter Bonetti | Mon, 15/02/2010 - 17:17 | Permalink

I was one who was critical at the time of 'bank rec-gate' but I am wondering whether or not we had the full picture.

Not a criticism but (as in even the worse soap opera) stories continue to unfold out of the picture. I am beginning to think that there has been more to this than meets the eye.

Danger!

cverrier | Tue, 16/02/2010 - 13:18 | Permalink

This all looks like an employment tribunal waiting to happen.

...and if, by any chance, #1 ever sees this blog, it'll be an expensive employment tribual waiting to happen....

Car Crash?

Anonymous | Thu, 18/02/2010 - 06:22 | Permalink

Oh dear oh dire.

Car crash in slow manipulative motion going on here CEO. I think you must realise how badly you are handling this #1 situation.

Your pedantic management of the bank reconciliation saga and failure to recognise how this would damage your working relationship with #1 has led to you now flailing around consulting one and all as to how best to fit up and push her out the door.

As #1's line manager you should have been aware of her staff management shortcomings and intervened before now. You would certainly have expected other department heads to have avoided wholesale collapse of their areas.

Still, too late for a little light remedial hand on the tiller now. Priority is to avoid an expensive, time consuming, debilitating unfair dismissal claim which, regardless of outcome, is likely to leave you exposed, in the eyes of staffat least, as the person who didn't see it coming.

The idea of AM as FD poses the questions; do you really need an FD? does AM wan't the job? is it a figleaf to ensure #1's departure? Thin ice at the tribunal maybe.

A little less posturing and a willingness to understand how you have undermined #1's position may enable you to find a face saving solution for yourself and #1.

Add comment