An analogy to consider

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-19-2004
An analogy to consider
21
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 10:51am
I hope nobody jumps at me saying I am a “bitter person” who enjoys applying my theories but here is an analogy I would like the posters to consider.

There are “fair” companies where there will be a fair human resources process where people may or may not be hired without a very stringent process, where there will not be a personal development plan for each individual, where the focus is not as much on the strengths as on the weaknesses, where employees rarely get bonuses for best performance but do get a warning any time anything goes wrong, where the thought of dismissing an employee is entertained at any time if the economy goes bad or if any of the weakness of the employee comes into play, where the management only worries about making great profits but not about its people…..you get the picture……this is a company where there truly are a lot of bad apples, the employees have zero loyalty to the company, where the employees bide their time until they find something better. In such a company people keep on coming in and keep on going it and this company never reaches the height of any form of success.

Then there are “great” companies where a person is hired after a very strict screening, where development plans are formulized for every individual since the company understands that every person is not perfect and will have many strengths but few weaknesses too and the plan will help focus on the strengths and help devise strategies dealing with the weakness, the purpose of the company is not just to keep the management happy but to keep the employee happy too, where the employee gets recognition when they do something good and are not warned to be kicked out of the door if anything goes wrong just because the company understands that this person was not arbitrarily brought in once but after a careful consideration, …you again get the picture. These are companies where the employees and management are loyal and committed to each others happiness, have high productivity, and reach heights of success. Here an average person has worked a number of years and the turnover rate remains low.

PG

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-16-2003
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 11:28am
And your point is.....
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-16-2004
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 12:01pm
I'm confused, too...the point is......
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-19-2004
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 12:15pm
Come on ladies.....the point wasn't that hard to miss.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-16-2004
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 12:30pm
Maybe you should enlighten us like you've been doing on all the posts....sounds like we all could use some help.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-14-2004
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 12:32pm
I actually do get the point PG. And as usual, I agree with much of what you say, if not necessarily the motive behind it. The key to the entire situation is the beginning though. In order for the "work" relationship to work in such a helpful and forgiving way, the "hiring" process has to have been conducted properly and thoroughly. When so many of us "hired" early in our corporation's existence, odds are we didn't know how to do this the right way. So we've got "employees" that don't fit our company's needs and now need to deal with the situation. That doesn't mean we have to be uncaring or cruel. But it may mean we have to part ways with that employee and start over the right way. Again, I appreciate what you are saying. I'm just adding my two cents.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-19-2004
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 12:53pm
When I mentioned "very strict screening", it did mean just that :) which is something the company can look back on in retrospect and still consider strict according to whatever the standards were at that time. Of course all the changes in expectations that will occur over time will be incorporated in the employee's personal development plan. Thats what's considered "growth".

PG

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-14-2004
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 1:07pm
So you're saying if the company hired someone for sales that is completely unable to sell, the company should work it into his "personal development plan"? Admittedly the company made a mistake in the hiring process, but that doesn't mean they should be required to keep an employee on who doesn't fit. Rather, the company should learn from its mistakes and use a better screening process next time.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-19-2004
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 1:20pm
You are talking about a situation where the hiring process was faulty, I am talking about the one where it wasn't. Two completely different situations.

Another thing that I would like to add to my post (not in response to you) is that when the expectations of the company from the employee for the coming year seem to grow, in "great" companies the employee is always informed and told which areas he/she needs to grow in. In "fair" companies, the the employee comes to know of the expectations after they have been failed and when there is another person sitting at his/her desk.

PG

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-16-2004
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 1:33pm
I'm getting your analogy....

In my situation (my M), I suppose one could say that I formed a joint partnership with another individual where the interview process made the opportunity sound exciting, thrilling, and the idea of a merger was something not to pass up. I was dangled every incentive and shown all the great benefits of joining this "company." In the beginning, working for this company was wonderful...communication and respect was rampant. Criticism was extremely low. Then over a period of time, my partner became moody, irate, even abusive at times. Nothing I could do was ever good enough, regardless of how hard I worked. I was told never to cry at work.....but it's hard not to. I tried to schedule meetings but was never allowed to give input...I was always cut short...interrupted. The "benefits" of our union stopped after a long series of events. I'm at my wit's end.

Then, I was made an offer by an outside company. No promises of promotions (M), just a chance to be a valuable person/employee again. Never any abuse here... Sometimes, we have to look at our options, especially when our current situation is as volitile and abusive as mine. Sometimes a person has to network and look for other career prospects.

Never would I leave one job for another just because it "sounds good." You have to do your research. Sometimes you just need a part-time job.

This was actually a very entertaining analogy. Thanks.


Edited 3/2/2004 1:35:19 PM ET by noregretsyet

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-14-2004
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 1:33pm
I see. So your analogy only works if the circumstances exactly fit those you describe. Hmmm...sounds familiar. Problem is, there are no companies exactly like either you describe. Instead, most fall somewhere in between. The "hiring" process is always somewhat faulty because it is done by human beings who don't always see the potential problems that will later become apparent.

And you're right that a company should make changes clear to an employee. But the fact is many companies do begin courting new employees once the changes have been made clear and the current employee either refuses or is unable to meet those requirements. Right or wrong, again, we are all human. In my "company", my current "employee" is simply a bad fit for the "job" and although I do have a future prospective "employee" whom I have "interviewed", the "job" has not been filled and will not be made available for some time.

Are we dancing around this enough yet?

Pages