Business Mentor, Consultant And Trainer
Recruitment/talent Acquisition, Career Counselling
Learning & Teaching Fellow (retired)
Raj Kumar Hansdah
Shrm, Od, Hrd, Pms
You have given your version of the story. We need to know other side also. Without knowing the views of other side, balanced views cannot be put forth.
Nevertheless, if am I to assume that you have not filtered any information, then I would say that it is worthwhile to quit the company. A person who wavers or plays fast and loose cannot be trusted in the long run.
Sometimes lower designation comes handy too. Whenever he gave some queer instructions, you could have told him to circulate the message in writing to all the employees. You could have told "I am just Asst HR". The instructions are of high-value nature. Therefore, a office circular under your signature would be taken at its face value by all the employees.
As such you have got job now. So why worry now about that investor's antics? I strongly recommend to put your foot down and join the new company. Your CEO should have been intelligent enough to tell him not to have his finger in the administration's pie. CEO could have told to investor to take 'X'% returns and just keep quite. But he did not do that. He is downplaying intrusiveness of the investor. Let him play price for that.
Dinesh V Divekar
Management & Behavioural Training Consultant
Bangalore - 560094
Limit of your words is limit of your world
29th December 2013 From India, Bangalore
I do not know, what specific suggestion are you looking for :
Whether You should continue in this co. or not ??
Is this what you want to ask ?
The situation that you have recounted; does not appear good.
you might have heard the Hindi saying : "Andher Nagri, Chaupat Raja .... " which loosely means one should not stay in a place which is ruled by an incompetent and temperamental person.
As you have already experienced how the top most bosses blow hot and cold; without displaying any sound principle of Management. What kind of future can one see in such a organization, where they change their mind at the drop of a hat !!
I am more concerned about the kind of game that is being played; the kind of pressure-tactics that is being applied on you. It has nothing to do with the job-description or the requirements of your job.
The only redeeming feature that I can see is; since it employs about 25 people; it is bound to comply with the EMPLOYER'S OBLIGATION and DUTIES under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act 2013. In fact, you can even compel them to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee.
My suggestion would be to look for other better opportunities and stay far from such proprietorship-like concerns.
29th December 2013 From India, Delhi
Raj Kumar has a very valid point: 'what specific suggestion are you looking for?'
@ Raj Kumar--
Frankly, I think you are over-shooting the situation by suggesting that this situation falls under the ambit of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act 2013. Unless misconstrued, this can't be termed as such.
Coming to the situation you mentioned, like both Dinesh & Raj Kumar mentioned, this is YOUR side of the story.
However, I THINK I know the Batteries Company you are referring to--so I would tend to give your version more weight than them.
Coming to your query: 'Was I wrong?'
This isn't a 'right' or 'wrong' issue I guess.
It's YOUR response that SHOULD have been different. You seem to have responded to the MD's comment to sit in the Reception by ASSUMING quite a few things. You could have asked the receptionist [IF you had one] to come & sit OR you could have sat to satisfy him & then LATER discussed with your CEO to find a long-term solution--pl remember that this MD is the one who is investing & he would obviously be keen to see how & where his money goes.
For all you know, the MD MIGHT be just testing you.....and you took a stance that CONVEYS an ego [pl note that anyone's response is DECIDED by how he/she PERCEIVES what we say......NOT by what we mean/intend].
Or he COULD be preparing the ground to fire you?
In a nutshell, you COULD have acted with a bit of TACT.
Now, without mixing-up issues, since the decision to fire you has been conveyed to you AND you too have got a new job, suggest DON'T change your stance--depends on your Comfort-level in the new job. Raj Kumar's proverb is an apt one here.
Just tell your CEO that you made commitment to the new Company--AND DON'T reveal the new Company's name--handle it with tact without saying 'I won't tell you'.
Hope you get the point.
All the Best.
29th December 2013 From India, Hyderabad
I agree with your point that the situation CURRENTLY does not fall "under the ambit of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act 2013.".
However, I tend to look BEYOND the current situation; and some possible scenario that might unfold.
Don't you think that it is better to be FORE-WARNED and BE PREPARED for any eventuality that might crop up ??
Or shall one wait for some mis-happening to occur, and then act ??
That is the reason I discussed about the constitution of Internal Committee under the Act which is the duty of all employers employing more than 10 employees.
Secondly, it might scare off these kind of employers from attempting MISCHIEF (the very word used by the member); and they will REALIZE that there are LAWS which are above them and they have to follow it.
I think the member (Ms. Madhuri) is undergoing stress and may not be open enough to DISCUSS ALL HER FEARS freely and openly. The very fact that she used the word MISCHIEF points at something.
Moreover, my reference to the Act was also based on the CIRCUMSTANCES that lead to, or are present, in cases of SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
As per the Act, these are :
"Section 3. Prevention of sexual harassment.
2. The following circumstances, among other circumstances, if it occurs or is persent in relation to or connected with any act or behaviour of sexual harassment may amount to sexual harassment>-
i. implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in her employment; or
ii. implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in her employment; or
iii. implied or explicit threat about her present or future employment status; or
iv. interference with her work or creating an intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment for her; or
v. humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or safety.
As one can see, these circumstances exist in this case.
This is what I wished to point out and raise an ALERT.
I appreciate your opinion and the above is not to contradict your opinion; but to ADD more facts and information for the larger benefit of all members. As seniors, we should not just RESTRICT ourselves to answering the query; but also to provide more information and opinion that results in more LEARNING.
29th December 2013 From India, Delhi
Others have made valuable suggestions and hence, I will answer your question of "Was I wrong?" I assume this question refers to your response to the investor's request to "sit in the reception for the sake of ambiance". As you have not said anything about whether there was a receptionist, or not, and where was she, if there was one, I have assumed that the receptionist was away and he asked you to give cover. If that was the case, then you were "Out of order".
Elsewhere, I have commented that especially in small organisations we have to be flexible and do all sorts of work. For example, even in a large organisation that I worked in, my boss took the duster and started cleaning the work benches (like a cleaner) and did not even ask the lab technician to do it. As soon as they saw him doing it, they volunteered. In another college, a female lab technician went and worked a a filing clerk, when the HOD's secretary was on holiday. The HOD took notice of that and, to cut the story short, encouraged to take part-time teaching and, eventually, recommended her to take up teachers' Training course. That lady became a successful Maths teacher. But for her doing the filing clerks' job, she might have retired only as a technician. The above two examples are from the UK.
My sincere advice to bloggers at CiteHR is that we do not consider any job to be below our dignity. However, in a unionised situation we should ensure that we do not do someone's work if it violates union rules.
Wish you all the best in your new job.
30th December 2013 From United Kingdom
There is no receptionist from the date of my joining. I used to assist HR & Admin Manager, later he moved to sales dept. and i alone taken care of everything as our's is a small company.I don't mind doing House Keeper work when required (during important occasions i did also without any hesitation) but someone (showing clearly his investment power) and ordering me to do that this though our maid was in the premises shows that he misunderstood me as i rejected in the beginning to sit in reception.At that time he was just new to our company. After that day he always met me whenever our CEO was busy & tried to see "yes"," "okay", "nodding head positively".
And i did that with my explanation but he doesn't want to listed to others,he just want others to listen to him. He might have gained such stance & respect from his previous company non executives but our office culture is completely different. Not only me,many employees got hurt with his addressing and way of talking.Our old CEO never hurt us like this new Investor. He is cool .He is having a kind of Leadership qualities,that he never tells us lower dignity work,he himself does on his own and we join with him. This is the main reason why i was unable to decide.
1st January 2014 From India, Hyderabad
1st January 2014 From India, Hyderabad