In a company that prides itself on its performance based culture, I was very disappointed at what was announced yesterday. It shook my belief - was it misplaced or had I been naively mistaken all these while?
You see, we are taking over a new function from overseas and this function requires a new supervisory role. So, my manager said last week.
Now there are 3 candidates for this role. For anonymity's sake, we'll label them as A, C and S.
A common trait amongst these 3 are they are currently team leaders in the existing work function. C has 10 years of experience in the firm and is a Senior Specialist by corporate rank. Both A and S are Officer (two ranks below Snr Specialist), with 4 and 2 years of service respectively.
Performance wise, C and S are better achievers and this is evident in the work entrusted to them. They are also the trainers in the department. C and S also manages the escalated enquries and literally manages the team when the Asst Manager is away.
A told C last week that she hopes C gets the new role as she believes C is the most capable. S agrees wholeheartedly. In her mind, C is the candidate with the highest calibre and it is only right that C gets it.
Little did we know that A went behind C's back to the manager and requested to be put in the new role.
Think about it.
If you were the manager, would you put A who is the least capable to manage the new function? A, the one who is never sure of her work and always double checks with C and S, who crumbles at the slightest sign of stress. A, who flees from complicated work issues because she knows not how to resolve, though thereotically you would think as a team leader, her work should by right be of a certain standard.
And when it was announced yesterday that A would take on the new role, the manager clarified that it is not a supervisory role that she is putting A in, but merely a 'checker' role where A will help to reconcile reports and check on everyone's work.
Maybe I am not getting it - can you differentiate a supervisor from a 'checker'?
I can't frankly. Where we work, the role of a 'checker' equates to a supervisor. Basically you are checking everyone's work for future audit checks. The 'checker' needs to ensure all information and work done comply to firm's and industry's regulations. And to do that, you need to obviously know your stuff inside out. Otherwise, how else to check and supervise?
I am baffled really.
I need to add in an very important point here - A who does all she can to avoid handling work queries, who secretly consults C and S for advice, is a frequent guest at the manager's office. She goes in there a few times a day for
chatting apple polishing sessions.
Maybe its not right to doubt A of her capablity. She does, as a matter of factly, has great behind polishing skills. I wonder if she has that listed in her resume.
****
He thinks I am being overly upset and over reacting. Well I was literally ranting and bitching about it during our dinner.
Maybe I am, but I can't help feeling disgusted and disillusioned about how blatanly the manager and asst manager practise favouritism. It is certainly not the first time, but this time round they have done it a little overboard.
C and myself are not surprised at the outcome, though we are very disappointed. I can only imagine how much more so it is for C.
Why her?
I have half a mind to tender in my resignation yesterday. A sign of protest, perhaps?
I love my job really but to work for a manager who clearly favours people who curry her favour (hey kinda rthymes!), I don't see any development for growth.
What she told me during my mid-year review? Haha, I find it hard to believe it will materialise.
On a happier note, I submitted 8 job applications online yesterday and received a call this morning. Going for an interview tomorrow with a recruiter, 2 possible positions.
Do keep me in your prayers and send many many happy vibes my way!
My contribution..
