I didn't think they would replace a colleague who left very quickly, but I didn't think it would last very long either. After three months, I thought he would never be replaced. Well in the end it was replaced but only after almost five months!
How to interpret that?
Couldn't find a replacement? - I do not believe that.
Didn't try very hard to find a replacement? - It's very possible.
And we have old platforms and databases going down, delaying production, workload almost impossible to achieve in 4th quarter and be "customer obsessed" delivering to our customers; in addition, the people who are SMEs in these platforms have been let go, therefore no one knows how to fix these properly and expediently. Yet, the self-centered and arrogant folks in charge of these ancient platforms, who never bothered to maintain the platforms, are still around, dilly-dallying, putting their charm and manipulation on the equally co--y and clueless new leaderships so that they get to keep their positions.
We've had a couple people leave and not be replaced at all. This, coupled with layoffs, makes the workload terrible for those left behind.
A chess game where the pawns are more valuable than the knights, and the number of knights to pawns is reversed. Sounds like a real winning formula.
It is so pathetic, an employee retires or leaves for another job and you have to justify replacing them. The company will drag it out for months on end and when they finally relent (if they even do) it will be just so that they can save money on salary and/or come in under budget.
We have an opening on our team and we are not authorized to back fill the position.
Q4 is all about tight budgets. And deciding how to reallocate next year.
We are all just chess pieces on a board. Sometimes they want more pawns instead of knights.