Dear Shwetavi,
Going by the inputs you've provided I could only express some thoughts here, if may be right or wrong totally or half here and there.
First of all you should realise yourself what is your role to play in the firm. I presume the projects are part of " Procurement, Operation/Execution, sales and Customer Accounts" I think these are directly coming under the Tech.head or the CEOs themselves. Therefore you have hardly anything to give directions to the team members in the project execution. You it appears form your opinions from what the team members say to you in confidence. What they might feel probably right or wrong. But the CEOs should be aware what they are doing and how their instruction impact on the projects on hand with the project team. You or anybody cannot put on the shoes of the CEOs. They know their priorities and it is their co. and whatever the bottomline going to be the reflection of their own deeds. So it is needless for you to get offended by what the CEOs do.
Secondly, CEOs in their best of judgments prioritize for reasons not known to you and the team. It is always there in any business to switch/deviate to other tasks for some reasons depend on circumstances. I don't deny but for this deviations the team could have finished Project A but you forget it is the CEOs who are going to be answerable for the slippages not the HR. In such a small firm it is quite normal to deviate like this. There was no other go where was TeamB to execute Project Z ? You want the CEO to recruit an exclusive team B ? Order book position didn't justify a new team B. Probably the CEOs achieved optimum utilisation of team Project A. In fact, think like this, while executing Project A, you should take pride, that you executed Project 'Z also which was not there originally. Which means you did two projects at a time. Is't not ? This is positive thinking from your example.
Thirdly, it is near to impossible to give instructions in 'onego' in the beginning itself. It is nothing wrong to add instruction in the course of execution or modify the given instructions. Ofcourse the team has to recommence the project all over again which fact the CEOs definitely awareof . The team naturally should get frustrated. You have to live with it. Don't think this sort of things happens only in your firm. It's happening, it will happen everywhere.
Then, how did you think it is 'dictatorship' ? Yes it is dictatorship, what else it could be. There are only two CEOs. Where the democratic functionality come from ? Afterall It's their firm they got every right to allow the firm to function according to their whims & fancies. Ofcourse the style and tenor will vary from person to person you have live with it whether you like it or not.
So you people are unnecessarily getting worked up and worried for nothing. It's not a fairytale but a way of life you have to live with it whether you like it or not. Only thing what you people can do is, quit and join another big co. only to let yourselves to lament then, your remarks would like this... '....see this team leader he/she behaves as if it is her/his own co. If it were to be his/her own firm how he/she would have behaved God only knows " Am I not sounding realistic or pragmatic friend ?
Take things in its proper perspective and move ahead. All the best.
From India, Bangalore
1064Going by the inputs you've provided I could only express some thoughts here, if may be right or wrong totally or half here and there.
First of all you should realise yourself what is your role to play in the firm. I presume the projects are part of " Procurement, Operation/Execution, sales and Customer Accounts" I think these are directly coming under the Tech.head or the CEOs themselves. Therefore you have hardly anything to give directions to the team members in the project execution. You it appears form your opinions from what the team members say to you in confidence. What they might feel probably right or wrong. But the CEOs should be aware what they are doing and how their instruction impact on the projects on hand with the project team. You or anybody cannot put on the shoes of the CEOs. They know their priorities and it is their co. and whatever the bottomline going to be the reflection of their own deeds. So it is needless for you to get offended by what the CEOs do.
Secondly, CEOs in their best of judgments prioritize for reasons not known to you and the team. It is always there in any business to switch/deviate to other tasks for some reasons depend on circumstances. I don't deny but for this deviations the team could have finished Project A but you forget it is the CEOs who are going to be answerable for the slippages not the HR. In such a small firm it is quite normal to deviate like this. There was no other go where was TeamB to execute Project Z ? You want the CEO to recruit an exclusive team B ? Order book position didn't justify a new team B. Probably the CEOs achieved optimum utilisation of team Project A. In fact, think like this, while executing Project A, you should take pride, that you executed Project 'Z also which was not there originally. Which means you did two projects at a time. Is't not ? This is positive thinking from your example.
Thirdly, it is near to impossible to give instructions in 'onego' in the beginning itself. It is nothing wrong to add instruction in the course of execution or modify the given instructions. Ofcourse the team has to recommence the project all over again which fact the CEOs definitely awareof . The team naturally should get frustrated. You have to live with it. Don't think this sort of things happens only in your firm. It's happening, it will happen everywhere.
Then, how did you think it is 'dictatorship' ? Yes it is dictatorship, what else it could be. There are only two CEOs. Where the democratic functionality come from ? Afterall It's their firm they got every right to allow the firm to function according to their whims & fancies. Ofcourse the style and tenor will vary from person to person you have live with it whether you like it or not.
So you people are unnecessarily getting worked up and worried for nothing. It's not a fairytale but a way of life you have to live with it whether you like it or not. Only thing what you people can do is, quit and join another big co. only to let yourselves to lament then, your remarks would like this... '....see this team leader he/she behaves as if it is her/his own co. If it were to be his/her own firm how he/she would have behaved God only knows " Am I not sounding realistic or pragmatic friend ?
Take things in its proper perspective and move ahead. All the best.
From India, Bangalore
Dear Shwetavi Ji...
Good Afternoon..
There are two plates or solution for any kind of problem... One is in positive way and the other is in negative way....
THE FIRST ONE: i.e., Positive Way.
You are telling that there ( you spelled as "their "which is wrong pl...) are two CEOs and they are interfering in the employees who are working on a different project or in the same project.....
As you know all the employees are reporting to the Chief who is called CEO..... When CEO is telling to do some urgent job it is employees duty to finish whatever the CEO is telling, irrespectively the job pertaining to new one or in the same project......
You are right that the employees are doing the job as per the client requirement ...... and at the same time the client would have spoken to the CEO for some modification which CEO wanted to tell the employees........ If the client wanted some modification to be done in the project, in small companies like yours, the client used to talk to CEO only and certainly to the employees those who are doing the job. Then..... the CEO may come tell the employees who has to do the job as per the CEO.
When the CEO brings some other un-related work to the employees who are working in some other project...... the employee can talk openly to the CEO when they take this new job the on going job may get affect the delivery...... Then CEO may think twice before disturbing like this and He may give the job to some one else...... or in case still the CEO insists to do the job the employee very well can attend the new job and finish it off....
At the end of the day who will be get affected if the employees can go reverse with CEO...................... it is only employees and not certainly the CEO.... If anything goes wrong CEO will take care off and not the employees only if employees do the job requested job by CEO....
This is the positive way...
SECOND ONE : i.e., Negative way...
When the CEO comes with the new job...... employee can say to him that they are on the on going project and they cannot take any job whether pertaining to new or else any modification on the existing project...... This ultimately may affect the feelings of not only the CEO but also the employees.... Ultimately the employees who rejected the work may not be in the GOOD BOOKS of CEO.....
Is this necessary ???
So the employees working in a small company.................. they should listen to their CEO and go with him..... which is good for both....
= regards = ramani =
From India, Bangalore
Good Afternoon..
There are two plates or solution for any kind of problem... One is in positive way and the other is in negative way....
THE FIRST ONE: i.e., Positive Way.
You are telling that there ( you spelled as "their "which is wrong pl...) are two CEOs and they are interfering in the employees who are working on a different project or in the same project.....
As you know all the employees are reporting to the Chief who is called CEO..... When CEO is telling to do some urgent job it is employees duty to finish whatever the CEO is telling, irrespectively the job pertaining to new one or in the same project......
You are right that the employees are doing the job as per the client requirement ...... and at the same time the client would have spoken to the CEO for some modification which CEO wanted to tell the employees........ If the client wanted some modification to be done in the project, in small companies like yours, the client used to talk to CEO only and certainly to the employees those who are doing the job. Then..... the CEO may come tell the employees who has to do the job as per the CEO.
When the CEO brings some other un-related work to the employees who are working in some other project...... the employee can talk openly to the CEO when they take this new job the on going job may get affect the delivery...... Then CEO may think twice before disturbing like this and He may give the job to some one else...... or in case still the CEO insists to do the job the employee very well can attend the new job and finish it off....
At the end of the day who will be get affected if the employees can go reverse with CEO...................... it is only employees and not certainly the CEO.... If anything goes wrong CEO will take care off and not the employees only if employees do the job requested job by CEO....
This is the positive way...
SECOND ONE : i.e., Negative way...
When the CEO comes with the new job...... employee can say to him that they are on the on going project and they cannot take any job whether pertaining to new or else any modification on the existing project...... This ultimately may affect the feelings of not only the CEO but also the employees.... Ultimately the employees who rejected the work may not be in the GOOD BOOKS of CEO.....
Is this necessary ???
So the employees working in a small company.................. they should listen to their CEO and go with him..... which is good for both....
= regards = ramani =
From India, Bangalore
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Top 10 problems with most Sales people.zip
Home Remedies For Memory Problems.pdf