Appraisal - employer not delivering
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
They were a client of the employer however I was the sole contractual interface. Any contact between my company and theirs went through me. Incoming or outgoing at all levels. Whether it was one of our technicians needing a bit of information, a supplier requesting a deviation from drawing or spec or whether it was a multimillion pound scope variation coming in from their directors.
The working relationship was built and maintained by me.
Soldato
When do you start out of interest or have you already? Was your employer particularly phased when you handed in your notice?
I understand what you are saying. But they were NOT your client. So the company can do whatever they feel is in the best interests of the company.
In fact the directors have a legal responsibility to work in the best interests of the company.
Whilst sometimes employees may feel let down by this. Ultimately you probably DON'T have the full picture or know what future plans the company had.
I had a driver say to me once " I know my round and I don't see why it has to change"
A: its not "Your" round
B: You dont see why it has to change as you don't see what happens to the other 30 odd routes.
In fact the directors have a legal responsibility to work in the best interests of the company.
Whilst sometimes employees may feel let down by this. Ultimately you probably DON'T have the full picture or know what future plans the company had.
I had a driver say to me once " I know my round and I don't see why it has to change"
A: its not "Your" round
B: You dont see why it has to change as you don't see what happens to the other 30 odd routes.
Soldato
I guess it depends whether it was genuinely in the best interests of the company or just convinient/less hassle for them to do so.
Either way the OP realised his goals and what the company wanted no longer aligned so moved onto bigger and better things.
The difference is matty that whilst that's true in a lot of cases I do have the full picture.
There was no logical reason for me not to go. The job that it was claimed i was needed on didn't start until over a week after I would have returned.
Either way it's done and I have it in writing that our client weren't happy with the decision and it'll be recorded during my exit interview that I wasn't happy with the decision and it contributed to me leaving.
I also believe I know the reason why the other person was sent in my stead but that's another story entirely...
There was no logical reason for me not to go. The job that it was claimed i was needed on didn't start until over a week after I would have returned.
Either way it's done and I have it in writing that our client weren't happy with the decision and it'll be recorded during my exit interview that I wasn't happy with the decision and it contributed to me leaving.
I also believe I know the reason why the other person was sent in my stead but that's another story entirely...
Soldato
This and i want to know what is said in the exit interview as well. *Grabs popcorn*
Which is exactly what he should have done.
99.9% of businesses don't solely exist to provide jobs. And the needs of one employee don't outweigh the needs of the business.
I think more employees should think of themselves as small businesses
Ah right, so the other person was female or not white or both.
They were indeed. Have no idea if that played a part in the decision making or not. Even if it did I bet nobody would ever confirm it! Not that I care. I have nothing against that person, it wasn't their choice and I get on very well with them (we're friends outside of work). It is a bit of a joke between us that she's the ultimate company box ticker though.
Did you bring this up as a reason for your resignation when you quit? I'm a firm believer in being brutally honest when resigning or during exit interviews. As long as you're not malicious when doing so, it can be quite a cathartic experience 
I imagine the definition totally depends on whether it's convenient for the company to portray it in a certain way at that exact point in time.
E.g. - the client goes "I'm afraid your main client has gone so we might not be able to keep you". But if the client is really happy with the work "the client wanted to express how great a job Daftemployer Plc is doing".
Lol it's true that it's a point of perspective!
When things needed sorting they were most definitely MY client.
When things went well they were OUR client.
When things needed sorting they were most definitely MY client.
When things went well they were OUR client.
I think if more employees had a different attitude things would be so much better.
I know this is probably best in another topic but if employees thought of their employers as their clients then attitudes would we different.
At the end of the day a company that I work for is my customer. My job is to keep my customer happy. If my customer is not happy then they can shop elsewhere.
So if my employer is my customer. I need to keep my customer happy. If I'm good at keeping my customer happy then they will reward me by staying my customer and paying me for my services.
Same as going shopping.
I know this is probably best in another topic but if employees thought of their employers as their clients then attitudes would we different.
At the end of the day a company that I work for is my customer. My job is to keep my customer happy. If my customer is not happy then they can shop elsewhere.
So if my employer is my customer. I need to keep my customer happy. If I'm good at keeping my customer happy then they will reward me by staying my customer and paying me for my services.
Same as going shopping.
That's the trouble though, within the company I am the client. All other departments feed in to me. It's a straight line through my boss to my VP to the CEO.
If you want to use that analogy then you have your employer as your client, and people around you that support your work have you as their clients. If you have a procurement team that is completely worthless then you can't shop elsewhere in order to deliver a better service to your client (employer). Likewise you don't have the freedom that a typical client / provider relationship would have where the provider can choose to subcontract the work and then build a margin in (unless you're that guy who took three jobs and got some people in China to do them).
It's oversimplifying things and I don't really see any positives to viewing a working relationship in that way.
But to keep the analogy going, the decision of whether to keep doing business with them is not with the person who relies on them to supply appropriate goods in a defined timeframe, unless you want to make an org chart where someone has multiple bosses.
You can solve issues of teams being ineffective, poorly managed, or issues with individual performance without trying to force every working relationship within a company into a client/provider agreement and build up a ridiculously complex internal market with none of the freedoms that usually exist on both sides of the client/provider relationship.
Difficulties in getting rid of underperforming staff usually result from companies taking a very lax attitude to setting achievable objectives and then evaluating staff against those targets - usually because it's a double-edged sword where it becomes difficult to explain why you aren't going to award a payrise or a bonus to someone exceeding all targets. If you actually bother to tell an employee what is expected of them, and those requirements are reasonable, then if you follow the proper processes ideally that person ends up improving. If they don't then you keep following your process until eventually they can be dismissed. If a company wants to take short-cuts and just get rid of someone then sorry, but it's absolutely right that there can be redress in that instance.
You can solve issues of teams being ineffective, poorly managed, or issues with individual performance without trying to force every working relationship within a company into a client/provider agreement and build up a ridiculously complex internal market with none of the freedoms that usually exist on both sides of the client/provider relationship.
Difficulties in getting rid of underperforming staff usually result from companies taking a very lax attitude to setting achievable objectives and then evaluating staff against those targets - usually because it's a double-edged sword where it becomes difficult to explain why you aren't going to award a payrise or a bonus to someone exceeding all targets. If you actually bother to tell an employee what is expected of them, and those requirements are reasonable, then if you follow the proper processes ideally that person ends up improving. If they don't then you keep following your process until eventually they can be dismissed. If a company wants to take short-cuts and just get rid of someone then sorry, but it's absolutely right that there can be redress in that instance.
Last edited: