| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 796.1 | Yuck | HANNAH::MESSENGER | Bob Messenger | Mon May 01 1989 11:35 | 15 |
| Re: .0
I find this very disturbing. It sounds like there is a strong incentive for
you to leave your group: if you get a promotion by taking a job in group X
and someone in group X gets a promotion by taking a job in your group, then
neither group loses head count (but overall productivity drops because each
of you has to learn how things work in your new group.)
It sounds like a short sighted (and hopefully short term) policy intended to
reduce head count. If that's its purpose, though, then maybe in the scenario
I gave in the previous paragraph *both* groups would lose head count (i.e.
they wouldn't be able to hire anyone to replace the people who left). If
so, you might want to point this out to your manager...
-- Bob
|
| 796.2 | Probably a temporary "freeze" on opening job reqs | DR::BLINN | This space intentionally left blank | Mon May 01 1989 13:15 | 20 |
| Did you ask your manager to explain this "policy" to you? I'm
pretty sure it's not "business as usual", but rather only a
temporary measure. And, in my opinion, it's not the right way to
encourage growth. If your manager can't provide an adequate
explanation, you can use the "open door" policy to escalate it
until you get the answer you want.
Given the current economic climate, I wouldn't be surprised to
learn that there is a freeze on increasing "headcount", and
clearly, if you filled a position that's currently listed as
"open", your manager would have to justify replacing you in your
old job (and that would involve a lot of paperwork, and there may
be a temporary freeze on opening new requisitions), but what
you've described is contrary to the way things are supposed to
work.
Tom
Tom
|
| 796.3 | Say What? | JETSAM::EYRING | | Mon May 01 1989 14:45 | 27 |
| I don't understand the situation...
In the first para, you said "an internal candidate accepts a promotion
within the same cost center." I.E., a mini-reorg that leaves total
headcount unchanged.
In the second para, you said that the "overall result is a decrease in
headcount."
Maybe the cost center isn't allowed to hire replacements? If that is the
case, it's a simple decision by the manager as to which job needs doing the
most. BTW, I've never seen a situation where an open req. was left in
place while replacements were NOT allowed. Usually reqs. are the first to
go, which means maybe your manager would rather have you where you are.
On a different issue, I'm not allowed to promote someone in the group into
a new position without an approved "exception', after all, if the person
deserved a promotion, as a good manager, I should have planned for it in
the first place and wouldn't need to give them a new job to promote them.
I agree with this, but it's not easy to explain when the person thinks they
deserve it and I don't, which by the way, is a lot of what these issues
come down to; a mismatch in expectations or the evaluation of the job a
person is doing between them and their management. No all managers like to
have these frank discussions and not all people "hear" the message even
when it's delivered.
|
| 796.4 | Topic, topic, who's got the topic? | AUSTIN::UNLAND | Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum | Mon May 01 1989 17:05 | 5 |
| Gee, the topic note didn't take long to get "disappeared". Reply
.3 brought up some interesting aspects, but it's not really possible
to discuss them within the context of the topic ...
Geoff
|