So here we go again. More upheavals at my former workplace.
Apparently the decision had been made to reassign for 4 staffers into another area. While the right to move personnel around lies with the management, it should ideally be done after taking into consideration the affected personnel's contribution and background is suited for the new area.
It will not do for the management to just willfully plonk staff into area that is not suited to their skills set. service personnel with food and beverage expertise would do best in an area with similar needs. This will ensure the staff and the intended target area both benefit.
It is folly to force a carpenter be a butcher, as much as it is folly to turn a race car driver into a fisherman overnight. Would you ask an electrician to fly an aircraft?
So, the issue here is why did this happen? My guess, supported by my own learning and experience, is that the powers that be has failed to understand the core competencies of its own manpower, and therefore failed to effectively utilise them.
Now, in an effort to disguise this inability, the seemingly ineffective staffers are 'redeployed' to an area requiring extra hands. training can certainly be provided to the affected persons, even proper career planning meetings to delineate the company vision and strategy for the staff, but all this still comes with the added sacrifice of employee morale and time. Reality however, is often in the negative end of the spectrum; minimal training, most cursory briefing and
consultation.
I can not make the accusation that this move was done with other intent as i havent any proof, but it certainly can be construed to reek of nepotism and the ultimate result of misdirection. Affected staff often have to deal with the unsavoury perception of being unwanted bad apples or non-performing workers. Their former contribution becoming less than a footnote.
Surely the powers that be are not that unseeing right? A leader who should be involved from end to end in an operation such as customer management & food and beverage service must realise that their manpower is wasted by not assigning the right tasks. If steps are not taken to remedy the underlying problem, then penalising the staff is the easiest way out.
It is my fervent hope that the leaders concerned use the opportunity to look back and fix this problem, and for the staff to also look inward and analyse what they may have done (or not do, if such is the case) so that both parties can have a common ground for reconciliation. Assuming of course both sides still care enough for one.
Otherwise, perhaps being rejected is indeed a positive thing. New challenges can be good for the soul.
Why do i even care one could ask? Because watching something beautiful fall into ruin is a horrible thing. Letting it continue is even worse
Apparently the decision had been made to reassign for 4 staffers into another area. While the right to move personnel around lies with the management, it should ideally be done after taking into consideration the affected personnel's contribution and background is suited for the new area.
It will not do for the management to just willfully plonk staff into area that is not suited to their skills set. service personnel with food and beverage expertise would do best in an area with similar needs. This will ensure the staff and the intended target area both benefit.
It is folly to force a carpenter be a butcher, as much as it is folly to turn a race car driver into a fisherman overnight. Would you ask an electrician to fly an aircraft?
So, the issue here is why did this happen? My guess, supported by my own learning and experience, is that the powers that be has failed to understand the core competencies of its own manpower, and therefore failed to effectively utilise them.
Now, in an effort to disguise this inability, the seemingly ineffective staffers are 'redeployed' to an area requiring extra hands. training can certainly be provided to the affected persons, even proper career planning meetings to delineate the company vision and strategy for the staff, but all this still comes with the added sacrifice of employee morale and time. Reality however, is often in the negative end of the spectrum; minimal training, most cursory briefing and
consultation.
I can not make the accusation that this move was done with other intent as i havent any proof, but it certainly can be construed to reek of nepotism and the ultimate result of misdirection. Affected staff often have to deal with the unsavoury perception of being unwanted bad apples or non-performing workers. Their former contribution becoming less than a footnote.
Surely the powers that be are not that unseeing right? A leader who should be involved from end to end in an operation such as customer management & food and beverage service must realise that their manpower is wasted by not assigning the right tasks. If steps are not taken to remedy the underlying problem, then penalising the staff is the easiest way out.
It is my fervent hope that the leaders concerned use the opportunity to look back and fix this problem, and for the staff to also look inward and analyse what they may have done (or not do, if such is the case) so that both parties can have a common ground for reconciliation. Assuming of course both sides still care enough for one.
Otherwise, perhaps being rejected is indeed a positive thing. New challenges can be good for the soul.
Why do i even care one could ask? Because watching something beautiful fall into ruin is a horrible thing. Letting it continue is even worse
posted from Bloggeroid
No comments:
Post a Comment