Names censored to protect the stupid
Feedback
My dismissal from continued employment at "Company X".
“Feedback for firing”
I was “let-go” from employment at _ after 7 months of working for them. Prior to my leaving the premises – I was asked to attend a “Feedback meeting” which started and concluded in my dismissal from the firm.
I was told that my employment was not going to be continued past its “trial period”. This was due to my performance not being sufficient. No specifics were given. I was left dumbstruck as previous employers had only acclaim for me – many had written letters of recommendation for me. I was also lost as to how this was to benefit the company; as not only was I the most senior member of the project I was working on, I was the only one who had been on the project since its conception.
I also was angry – as it was directly stated that my performance was ‘lacking’. Which did not sit right with me as I had put an excess of at least 15 hours / week, uncharged overtime, for the previous 2 months.....due to poor staff allocation on the project?
It was noted that I was “outspoken” specifically with regards to issues and concerns with the project. However I was not prompted to elaborate on these, nor was I questioned for my thoughts on the project.
The whole process was so “matter-of-fact” and structured that my instincts told me to sign whatever was in-front of me and get out of that room (and the building) as soon as possible. This left me completely disillusioned about the world, and disempowered to change it.
What would have improved the situation?
Functional Conflict (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p277)
If I was consulted as to why there were issues in the project, or why it was not on schedule – I could have addressed many misconceptions about the project. The issues could have been addressed, and resources channelled towards the project – improving both the perspective of the management, and the image of the company (who looked ill-prepared in the customers’ eyes).
Instead there was a dysfunctional conflict as my team then promptly confronted the management as to why all the project information was sent out the door in my head.
Identifying the Problem (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p248)
It was assumed that since the numbers did not sit right, and my name was on most of the project information – the problems sat with me. However if the feedback had prompted me to identify the problems to management, I could have done so simply. This would have also have empowered me – as I would have removed the misconception in my mind that my teams thoughts and concerns were being ignored.
Balance of Upward Feedback (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p204)
As the project had recently had a change in staff and a restructure. A new project manager was placed in charge of the project. He reported directly to the top regional level of management (and them to him). However due to his lack of knowledge in the project area, and lack of understanding of what the staff were doing – he could not relay information to management or staff involved in the project. He found it difficult to communicate ideas and feedback which separated the staff and management into an “us and them” scenario.
He also was not present during contact to customers, design meetings or even my dismissal. This lost any trust he had built up within the team (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p235). He was a break in the communication line – and feedback was not getting transferred.
Overall I found the feedback that justified my dismissal did not qualify as “objective information” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p201). This made me feel that I did not really want to work for a firm that operates on such poor information.
I felt the feedback was not an “exchange of information” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p201). It was simply a witch-hunt, and I was a martyr for their cause.
References:
Kiniki, A, & Kreitner, R,. (2009). Organization Behaviour: Key Concepts, skills & best practices.
N.Y. USA : McGraw-Hill/Irwin
www.farrst.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment