I am struggling to understand what the logic of managing this company is. I noticed that in my store, those who, in addition to doing their job regularly, were also helpful to their colleagues, those who worked the most, were axed. The store is now unrecognizable.
Mostly those who have never helped anyone, but do not even do their part of the job, have stayed. Why they are rewarded and really good workers punished I will never understand?
6 replies (most recent on top)
Yeah, very difficult situation. With the PULSE SURVEY coming up, it will be interesting to see the responses.... especially with questions like "Do you see your people leaders as positive role models? " or "Do you see potential in developing and growth within uour career?" . C'mon Red Star, get with the program and start paying attention ti your workers, especially those who have been loyal gor such a long time.
Macy’s is doomed and management knows it. They’re just trying to hurry up the failure and get it over with all ready.
Cause your score card means nothing. It’s all who doesn’t like you for whatever reason. A lot of reason is managers feel threatened that you will take their job so they try to get you out the door before that happens.
Favoritism pure and simple. It happens everywhere.
I actually had to look up the definition of "vicissitudes"! This all makes sense. I think the people that are most at risk of being let go are often the ones that really understand how tough or wrong things may be or who really needs a helping hand. That is often a level of recognition that can't be tolerated because it fosters real knowledge and insurrection. Drones are much preferred.
Loyalty is the currency of self-preservation. At M as with many corporations one has two jobs. The first being to do their job and the second to manage the perception of how they are doing their job. Those that focus on the former typically cut the faustian bargain while doing so and in turn engender ‘Loyalty’. Those that focus on the first job elicit the question ‘what have you done for me lately?’ This is critical to understand.
Typically the sequence of events unfolds as follows. You’re Store Manager will receive a call invite at a random time. The news is shared that ‘changes’ will be implemented and talent evaluation spreadsheets require their input, complete with password encryption. Simultaneously, budgets for hourly colleagues are previewed and planning begins in earnest. In terms of management, Sometimes there are instructions regarding stack rankings such as by tenure. Other times rankings require obscure behaviors that some JP acolyte dreamed up at a moments notice. And at times ranking stick to the flavor of the ‘core behaviors.’ Though it may surprise many, historical performance in terms of reviews or achievement is rarely taken into consideration. And if it is at most these metrics will comprise 50% of an hourly colleagues ranking (many times not however), but manager rankings tend to be empirically subjective. Hence, the question ‘What have you done for me lately?’ becomes infallible while a Store Manager inputs numbers into their spreadsheet to manipulate the output in aggregate.
If one thinks that there is a modicum of objectivity in talent rankings, they are sorely confused. Take for example an inversion and alteration of talent rankings with each new DVP. It should also be noted that The same game your ‘colleague’ or ‘manager’ is playing with their supervisor is analogous to the one being played all the way up the teetering latter to JG.
Therefore, taking these factors into consideration one can illuminate on the the ‘causes’ of the OPs question about vicissitudes of change.