Getting Fired For Not Taking A Promotion? 243
iKantBelieveThis asks: "I work in a relatively small (6-8 person) IT shop for a branch of a Large company. I am the #2 person in the department, and the IT Manager is leaving the company. It seems that management has determined that I am going to take over and be promoted to IT Manager. I don't want this. I am quite happy where I am, doing what I am doing and the pay is just fine. I don't want the headaches, political bickering and exposure to hostile fire that being the IT Manager entails. I am willing to take temporary responsibility for the operation, that is part of my job description. I am not refusing that part of the deal, I just don't want it to be permanent." Why should an employee be forced into a permanent promotion if they are doing well in their current one. Of course...in the corporate world, things are never as simple (or logical) as they should be.
"The company, however, is saying that either I take the promotion or be dismissed. Part of their reasoning is that if I am refusing the appointment, I must not be qualified for the job (I am qualified), even though I don't want it to begin with. Ah, the joys of corporate logic."
Re:What's constructive dismissal mean? (Score:1)
Re:I wish I had that problem. (Score:1)
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:1)
What's constructive dismissal mean? (Score:1)
Re:What's constructive dismissal mean? (Score:1)
If you can prove a company set unreasonable
objectives then sacked you for not meeting
them then that's constructive dismissal. I
guess in the US it would be classed as a
conspiracy of some kind
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:1)
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum - BAD IDEA!!! (Score:1)
This is usually a terrible idea; depending on where you live and who you work for. Here in the Midwest the moment you started getting upitty like that they'd can you, and blacklist you. I know several people who've tried pulling this sort of thing who will "never work in this town again." Which is of course why most IT folk ditch the Midwest for the coasts if they can ASAP.
Mind that if you're in a department of a large company that has it's HQ and decision making done in the Midwest they'll can you even if you're on the coast.
Some companies are not up to speed on the new economy, and don't deal well with issuing of ultimatums position being reversed. Also, people generally don't like being threatened no matter what the situation. If you get confrontational like this you may get to keep the job, but it won't be as comfortable or as nice as it once was. You may end up having to quit anyway.
Some management are wise to the "promoted to level of incompetance" concept, and don't really want a talented IT person promoted to where he or she can't help the bottom line anymore. Point out where you've save them money as number two that you can't if promoted to number one. Perhaps this is just a communications issue, and they want you to keep on doing what you're doing, but need you to have the new job title so all of the corporate i's and t's are dotted and crossed.
Always frame these peon to boss arguments in terms of money and how what you want will benefit them. Fundamentally, nobody gives a shit about anyone but themselves.
You shouldn't have to threaten, nor should you expect that your job is going to stay static for the rest of your career. I'd suggest you pick out the things that make you most uncomfortable about the new position and bargain with them. "I'll give you this, if you give me this." for example.
This would be an opportunity to cut down on meetings and weasel some extra conferences out of your bosses maybe?
I'd also suggest two excellent books on corporate politics. One is "I love the job, but hate the People - How to swim with the sharks without being one" and the other is "It's a job not a jail". I'm sorry, but I don't have the author names on hand. Both books give an eye-opening view of what goes on in management heads.
Re:Say no and let them be damned... (Score:1)
ulterior: [other stuff removed] 2 : going beyond what is openly said or shown and especially what is proper.
Taken from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary [m-w.com]
Re:Mgmt Reasons (Score:1)
The best solution is to promote someone who wants the job, has the right skills for it, and is easier to replace than the original person. Failing that, it's better to high a new person at the top level and train them to work with the department than to mess with the existing structure of the department. Of course, that requires finding someone who can be new at the top level without destroying the department.
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:1)
They are right. You are wrong. (Score:1)
Frankly I would seriusly consider tosing a number 2 techie that rejected a promotion to IT manager. It basicaly says "this goy dose not want to accept responsibility for what hapens."
I would keap you if you came with a *good* excuse like "The IT Manager has a realy hot secretery that I am trying to seduce. If she is my secretary then that becomes harasment.". Avoiding political bikering is not a good excuse. I would toss out your unambitius ass.
PS: For your own sake I would suggest you take it. Even for a 12 months. "My last job was IT Manager at ACME." looks really nice on a resume.
Re:They are right. You are wrong. (Score:1)
I would never tell him to sacrifice that.
Give the devile his due (Score:1)
Of course not everyone wants to be Gates. He just surounded himself with people who do.
Why they want you (Score:1)
A similar thing happened to me. A year ago my company tried to promote me to a management position, and I said no. My feeling was that at this point in my career, abandoning a technical job for a management job would be a one-way trap door -- it would be very hard to go back to a technical job in the future after being "management" for any non-trivial period of time. When they leaned on me, I said that I was happy with my current set of responsibilities, and would sooner leave than take on something I was not comfortable with. I guess they valued my work, since they backed right off and hired someone else to do the job (someone else from within the team, and he does a much better job at it than I would have.)
--
Don't Give In (Score:1)
They can't fire you. [IANAL] (Score:1)
Sounds like they are trying to play a political game with you. Often companies will promote within as a way of saving money. Your sallary won't get as big as they would have to pay for a new hire.
Talk to a lawyer in your state.
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:1)
Bullshit (Score:1)
You don't need that crap. The company doesn't value you if they give you such a senseless ultimatum. Tell them how you feel about it and if they still decline to let you keep your current position, leave. Plenty of jobs out there.
Change happens (Score:1)
One thing you might consider, howerver, is that your contentedness with your current situation might be heavily dependenent upon the current management. If your #1 is replaced with someone else, this could change drastically.
By taking the promotion, you have more control over the direction of the department and nurturing the climate you have become so comfortable with.
If you do convince your company that you are not the right person for this job, you should still volunteer to take a more active role in the management, so that you can ensure that the environment you like persists for a while longer.
Explicit hierarchy is sometimes necessary for blame assignment, but is rarely the actual operational leadership structure. The price for displaying leadership from within the ranks is exposure to increased responsibility by promotion.
It may be that you just have to have an honest discussion with the decision makers about this. But make sure you yourself understand why you don't want this position, and can articulate that fact to your management (without bursting into tears or hollering at people).
Whatever happens, good luck!
Re:Mgmt Reasons (Score:1)
Re:Say no and let them be damned... (Score:2)
> Tribunal/Court Action would accept 'Turned down
> promotion' as a valid reason for your sacking.
I don't know about this. This is how the military works. You can turn down one assigment during your first enlistment, but if you turn down a second one after that, or even your first after your first enlistment, they will get rid of you. They will say that turning down an assignment "is not conducive to a military career". Believe me, I know. That's what happened to me.
If the government can do it, I don't see why they would object to any companies doing it also.
Re:I wish I had that problem. (Score:2)
Basicaly you need to show a little growth every quarter. If the choice are -$1 now and +$50 next 1/4 or +$5 now and +$10 next 1/4 then for a publickly traded company the second option is far better.
Why do you think the likes of Microsoft doctor the books so heavily to show sales and profits on a different curve from real life?
In my experience they just call your bluff (Score:2)
I've tried this tactic twice in the past and both times I've ended up moving.
Of course, it could be that I'm crap at my job and they're happy to see me go. :-) My personal opinion is that some fuckwit managers decide that you're due for a promotion, and their mind is made up- if you challenge the assumptions of fuckwit managers, they see this as rebellion and are happy to let you go.
Luckily I've always been able to find a better job all round every time.
There ARE good managers out there. Sometimes things like this don't happen.
--
"The Dawn Patrol" (Score:2)
While I personally do agree with most of your points, I would like to offer a possibility for another perspective.
I would suggest that the next time you are in a good video store you rent "The Dawn Patrol". [Warning - plot spoiler]. I don't remember the characters offhand, but there was a captain who was responsible for "managing" a wing of WWI flyers. "Managing" in this context basically meant deciding who would be sent out to their deaths, particularly the newbies. There was also a lieutenant who was the best flyer in the wing, but who was constantly giving his commander enormous amounts of Dilbert-style grief about what an incompetent idiot he was, how his flying skills had deterioriated, how he didn't have the courage to stand up to the higher-ups and make the tough decisions, etc. etc.
There are two keys points in the movie: the paired looks of glee on the face of the captain and shock on the face of the lieutenant as the captain gives the lieutenant his captain's bars and turns over command of the wing; and the look of horror on the (new) commander's face when he realizes he is going to have to assign his brother (a newbie) to a mission that will mean certain death.
I guess the point here is, if you are truly content to just be a technical contributor, then that's fine. But if you are sitting on the management sidelines, quoting Dilbert at every staff meeting, perhaps there is a reason why upper management is insisting on an "up or out" policy.
sPh
Up or Out (Score:2)
- According to some corporate cultures, a person who is not progressing in "rank" is seen as stagnant, and therefore a loser. This is actually codified in the military (at least the US military) and is prevalent in professional services firms where you can make partner. (Law firms, accounting firms, "consulting" firms like McKinsey and BCG).
- If you don't promote someone to a more leveraged position, it's difficult to cost-justify paying them more each year. In theory, a management position allows you to leverage your expertise by helping less-senior people do the job your doing now. Economic factors may cause your position to become more valuable, but barring those externalities, your intrinsic value to the company isn't changing if you don't move up. You need to be prepared to get a small or zero raise if you stay in one role.
That said, consulting/account firm PricewaterhouseCooopers, a venerable practitioner of "up or out," did a study a couple of years ago and figured out that it cost them $50K, on average, to punt a perfectly good employee just because he or she didn't fit the next higher promotion level. This issue is particularly accute in these kinds of companies because as you progress from "Manager" to "Senior Manager", your role changes from "person who does work" to "person who sells work." I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who read Slashdot would cringe at the thought or going from project participant to salesbot. Anyway, PwC is trying to tackle the issue as are other "up or out" organizations, inlcuding the US military.Anyway, I agree with the posters urging you to tell your company that you don't want a permanent promotion. Point out the cost of filling your job as well as the management position. Give them a deadline or they may "forget" that your position is temporary.
As an aside, although the consulting firms are ultimately geek-unfriendly, they can be great experience for a couple years, particularly starting out.
take this or leave it.. (Score:2)
Just my worthless
Start looking for a new job, seriously. (Score:2)
You say that you're one of several IT support people. Do the others know the situation? Imagine how they might feel. Not only do they lose a (hopefully) experienced manager, but they're likely to lose the next most experienced person at the same time. This means overtime and a basic drop in moral. I don't envy the people in the company I'm about to leave, they're in an even worse position and some of them don't even know it.
Remember, this crap is the crap you know about and you have some limited control over it. For all you know another bad IT-related decision is also currently being made that you don't know about. Even if it isn't happening now, it could at any time. Go find a nice job that doesn't treat skilled IT staff like workers on a factory floor...
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:2)
Unless you've already found that new job, don't be so sure of that.
The statistics last time I checked (which was admittedly a couple of years ago) were that on average, the length of time it took to find a new job in this field was close to your old salary divided by 10,000 in months.
In other words, if you're making $50,000 a year now, the average is 5 months to find a new job.
This probably only holds true in the $20,000 to $90,000 range, but I don't know exactly what the range was. I do know that the assumption was that you were looking for another job in the same range of pay.
-
What I would do (Score:2)
Take the promotion, but negotiate a nice raise "for the extra responsibility and unpaid time I'll have to put in."
Update my resume, now showing that I have management experience.
Start looking for CIO jobs with startups, sticking it out in the management job until I found them.
In the meantime, I'd simply budget my time so that I kept my hand in technically. There's no reason you can't, and now you get to decide who does what when.
Also, you undoubtedly have had bad managers in the past at some point in your life (if you're like me, more often than not), so now's your chance to find out if your own ideas for management work. If they do, you might convince other managers to work that way, and affect some positive change in your organization. Or somebody else's.
I work for FedEx Services, and we have some managers here who are ass-deep in the technical side, and others who think RAM is a product of the Daimler Chrysler corporation.
I personally know one guy who was a manager for about a year, didn't like it, and got himself a peaceable demotion to a technical advisor position in which he is gleefully happy. Only now, he's got management experience on his resume, which is a big help in getting technical lead positions at many companies.
In other words, if your company is trying to give you lemons, make lemonade.
-
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:2)
We can all find anecdotes that violate any rule of thumb. In the misty past, I remember getting fired from a $19,000 job and having a new one lined up before I reached my car in the parking lot, then quitting that $26,000 job a year later and taking 4 months to find my next one, which was for considerably more money.
-
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:2)
This actually applies to anyone who's reading this: if you need to switch jobs, do so now.
I completely disagree. If you move now, the company you move to may start laying off the less-senior employees in six months.
If you wait until *AFTER* the bust, any company that hires you is probably counting on building, not shrinking, and has probably already cleaned house.
-
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:2)
On the 1% chance that you aren't trolling, I'll respond.
I got my figure from one of the trade rags. It's been so long I don't remember which one, but it could have been Network World, or Computerworld, or possibly Information Week. One of the crappy non-technical ones.
-
Peter vs Dilbert Principal (Score:2)
The Peter Principal is when someone is promoted until they reach a job that they can't do.
The Dilbert Principal, on the other hand, is the notion of taking the *least* productive engineers and promoting them where they can do the least harm, namely Management.
As the poster describes it, his situation sounds like the Peter Principal. But we only have his side of the story. It may be that management doesn't see him as a good engineer and wants to hire a better engineer and really just wants to promote him to management to make room for the new engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
Give it a whirl, you might like it (Score:2)
I was in a similar position about 15 months ago. Guy who mentored me my first two years with the company was downsized by upper management, and middle management was in a crunch. I knew enough to be dangerous, and the stuff I didn't know was fairly well documented on a big fat network drive somewhere.
I was skeptical that I was up to the challenge. I was happy being an "apprentice;" I didn't want to me the guy who was accountable to higher management. I didn't really think I could do everything. Fortunately, our immediate manager understood the situation and set my expectations pretty well-- he didn't expect the world right away; only that I give it a go and see how it went.
Well here I am, a big fat promotion later, and I'm much better off for it. I don't know the specifics of your situation, but this could be the so-called "blessing in disguise."
Maybe one man CAN make a difference-- in your case, do the job as best you can, and manipulate the system (bureaucracy sucks, I know; I work in a 30,000 employee company) locally as much as possible, while balancing what's best for your employees and best for the corporation in total.
See if you can do it, and if you cant... well, as many others have suggested, you'll probably have another job in no time.
Best of luck!
Give them the number of your lawyer (Score:2)
Then sue the pants off your previous employer.
-josh
Re:No you don't, 'cuz they *really* want to fire y (Score:2)
As a CEO, you really should get hip to this thing we call "sarcasm", 'cause that's what the previous poster was using.
The Hacker FAQ... (Score:2)
Normally, the link is http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/faqs/hacker.html [plethora.net], but IBM just bought a copy, so it's currently sitting at http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/su-s e2.html [ibm.com].
(I enclose the old link in case this article survives past the 30-day exclusive publication period.)
You might also want to read the other side of it, the Manager FAQ. The URL will eventually be http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/faqs/manager.html [plethora.net], but IBM paid for the writing, so it's currently sitting at http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/su-s e.html [ibm.com].
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:2)
I've got headhunters calling me all the time, and while I am not looking for another job (I am actually changing jobs with the new year already, for a job I wasn't really looking for), I never completely shut doors with headhunters unless they do something to really piss me off -- in general I give them a polite brush-off with a 'maybe later'. You never know when you'll need them, either to find a new job for yourself (or a friend of yours) or to find a new co-worker.
Another thing to do if you are in a hurry to find a job is post your information on an internet job site (like dice.com for example). If you've got skills and you live in an area (or are willing to relocate to an area) that has IT jobs you will likely have lots of calls from companies and headhunters.
Re:Don't worry (Score:2)
Note that I am not in favor of frivilous lawsuits, but the reality is that it isn't that difficult to find a lawyer who will file a lawsuit for you in a case like this.
Re:Don't worry (Score:2)
True up to a point, however this is a decision that is being thrust upon the employee by an arbitrary decision by the company, not something they are choosing willingly. Many people have been successful in wrongful termination suits because the employer effectively forced them out by 'materially changing compensation or job terms and responsibilities' to something that wasn't acceptable. In most of those cases the former employee only got a small amount, but it happens pretty frequently.
Exceptions to this include the family medical leave act and other Pro-Family measures to prevent descrimination for participation in non-job related activities. HOWEVER, choosing not to accept a promotion is most definately job related and the company is well within its rights to dismiss a person for this reason.
Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't mean you still can't sue. Doesn't mean you'll win either, but in either case the company loses because they are out legal fees plus their time.
As another poster so rightly pointed out, refusal of a promotion can be both considered to an indication of faltering job committment
That is pretty wacked thinking even for PHBs.
as well as a perceived insult to other management.
Perception is in the eye of the beholder, but anyone who thinks this way would seem to have some serious problems with their self esteem.
In both cases the company may be best advised to dismiss the individual.
Perhaps, but what I was saying is that it is pretty stupid to fire someone on such shaky grounds for several reasons. It also shows a lack of communication on management's part, because I would never have made an offer for a promotion to someone unless I was pretty sure ahead of time it is something they would want. I'd certainly never try to force someone into a promotion they didn't want.
Businesses (contrary to popular young person belief [full disclosure: I myself am a young person not suffering from this particular mental disease])
I am not a young person, nor do I suffer from that particular ailment. My points were that it was a bad idea to get rid of an employee for a reason like this because of the potential downside to the employer dealing with a lawsuit, be it successfully defended or not.
are about making money and prospering. If they're not, they should go out of business.
Part of being successful is avoiding stupid decisions that can land you in court.
This means the good of the whole outweighs the good of the one (no matter who he is...even if he's the CEO [which btw, happens all the time]).
Life just isn't that simple. While CEOs get sacked all the time, they are usually given a 'golden parachute' just to keep them from suing, and even then sometimes it doesn't work.
While I'll agree that it is probably a poor business practice, it is NOT and SHOULD NOT be illegal or grounds for litigation.
I didn't necessarily say it should be illegal, but it certainly could be grounds for litigation.
Also, if you work in an at-will employment state (like me), no grounds are required for dismissal and the burdon of proof weighs heavily on those claiming some protected status under the law. Pretty much better be pregnant or covered by the ADA (which seems to be almost anyone nowadays).
As I've said before, just because a case wouldn't be easy doesn't mean it can't be filed.
Anyway, I just hate it when the solution to every problem is litigation.
Again, I agree up to a point. I am not for frivilous litigation, however, I also don't think there should not be any recourse for people at all in any circumstance. The question is where to draw the line.
Move on. If they fire you, you probably don't want your job back. If rehire is not your goal, your suit is vengeful and should be considered frivolous as you are not entitled to the job and are compensated regularly for your work.
While I would agree that in most cases, rehires after a lawsuit are not going to work, there does need to be some way that companies can get spanked when they terminate people for illegal reasons. I'm not saying that for sure that would apply in this case, but I am speaking just generally. Of course the amounts received by the plaintiffs should be reasonable (limited to reasonable damages such as costs related to finding a new job, unemployment benefits, etc), and if punitive damages are assessed against a company, they probably shouldn't go to the plaintiff or his lawyers, they should go to offset the government's costs in administering and enforcing employment law. Basically there should be enough incentive to file groundful suits but not a lot of 'free money' to make ambulance chasing plaintiff's attourneys file every case they can dig up.
Even if a plaintiff knows they probably can't win a case if they are willing to eat their own attourney's fees they can 'punish' a former employer by making them pay their legal fees and lost time, etc. dealing with a case. Right or wrong, that is the way the system works.
Silly (Score:2)
make a simple case of constructive dismissal
under UK employment law.
Re:I wish I had that problem. (Score:2)
Some of us wouldn't consider a job where you spend all of your time in meetings a "promotion". Most tech jobs have enough meetings and politics as it is.
If there's no technical component, I wouldn't want the job either.
In this market? You drive. (Score:2)
Also, less than a year later I went to the boss and said "Damnit I want my own direct reports. I'm managing this crew anyway, but it sucks to not have any officially seniority on paper." So now I've got reports. Who knows, you might find that management isn't as bad as you think it is.
Duane
Lose number one and number two? (Score:2)
I think you have some serious negotiating room.
The mindset of the Suit: "SUIT is GOOD!" (Score:2)
Management thinks that all people, like them, actually want to become managers. I recall leaving a job, one of the reasons given is that there isn't any room for growth. "But there's plenty of opportunity to become management here!" You can imagine the shock and annoyance on the suit's face when I explained that I was talking about technical growth, and I had no interest in management.
Today, I have prevented getting myself in such a position by directly telling my management that a management position does not interest me. Explaining from a management point of view helps (want to stay directly in the details, that sort of thing). It works.
If you decide to leave and want Satisfaction (Score:2)
They'll probably explode after reading it. Hmmmm... maybe you'd want to hold of presenting it until the exit interview.
Mod Quincunx42 up! (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with persuing a technical career. Really, "management track" is no more or less valid than "technical track" and I would think twice about working for managers who delude themselves into thinking that management is the natual progression for any successful career. I would also think twice about working for managment that has no concern for the career asperations for thier employees and think that it's a good idea to *force* someone to switch from a tech job to a management job. I don't see how this company can expect a good outcome from that little ploy.
The comany is obviously trying to bluff and painting themselves into a corner in the process. They are far better off with their senior IT guy than without him (or her), but they want him take the management job. But instead of accepting that not everyone want to be in management (and perhaps even realizing that there may be reasons why no one wants to do management at that company), instead they push forward with some ego-driven bluff to force the senior IT guy to do their bidding. It's a classic 1950's sitcom move ( I always think of Mr. Cogswell of the Jetsons), and a very stupid move. If they get their way, they have an unhappy, reluctant manager who may be too depressed to do a good job. If not, they are now forced to fire an otherwise excellent employee for subordination, if he doesn't leave first.
No matter what, iKantBelieve would be better off looking for a new job. It would be prudent to grin and bear it at the existing job until he/she is ready to heave on his/her own terms, but ultimately, there are other companies that would be more compatible with iKantBelieve's long term career goals.
Re:Mgmt Reasons (Score:2)
IMHO, after working for various managers for the past 25 years, good management skills are as rare as good technical skills. The difference is that management skills can't be detected as easily as technical skills. Assuming you can turn any techie into a good manager is as silly as assuming you could turn any manager into a competent Java programmer.
This company should be grateful that the employee in question knows his limits, and doesn't want to be promoted to a job he can't handle in the long term. (See THE PETER PRINCIPLE for a further discussion of this problem). But they aren't; I agree he should probably find another job.
I've noticed this as well... (Score:2)
Generally speaking, the companies that pull stupid shit of this nature aren't places that you actually want to work. The company that wrote me up for "intimidating my co-workers" (probably because I'd rather work than gossip) and the one that let me go for some fairly spurious reasons (long story) paid horribly and had relatively nasty working conditions. Three days after I was fired by one of those places, I had a much better job with more money and a saner environment.
If they are stupid enough to fire you with this kind of reasoning, they deserve what they get.
Moderators, where are you? :) (Score:2)
Excellent post.
This applies to most fields, not just CS.
A biology professor I know said that this exact problem is why he chose to teach rather than following his original dream of becoming a park ranger. He knew that in a few years he would be promoted right past doing the work he loved.
I once worked under someone who was "promoted" into management mostly on the strength of her excellent technical abilities. But she wasn't a good herder of cats, and she suffered in this position until she was instead given an "expert analyst" position with a similar pay scale but no managerial duties.
I also once worked under someone who supervised engineers, and did it reasonably well, without being an engineer herself.
Management skills and advanced skills for one's actual job are not the same thing. They aren't even related, most of the time. Assuming that they are is a VERY bad move. Now, this is not to say that the department expert shouldn't be lending a hand to the newbies; s/he certainly should be! However, expecting the expert to be an expert manager as well as an expert programmer (or park ranger, or financial analyst, or whatever) makes no sense. The skills aren't the same.
Re:I dunno, dude... (Score:2)
Well, no. Ambition is not the same thing as excellence. You need both to make a great company, but not necessarily in the same person. In fact, large numbers of excellent specialists who prefer to become more excellent, rather than move up the corporate ladder, is actually a considerable asset.
If the boss confuses lack of ambition for lack of responsibility. It is possible for someone to be extremely responsible for their job and to their company, without being responsible for subordinates.
Being the kind of manager who wants to see ambition in all his employees because he himself was ambitious, does not make one a good manager -- it makes one an insecure, neurotic fsck who needs to be surrounded by carbon copy minions, and who puts one's own ego gratification before the good of the enterprise.
Re:Stop being selfish, take the job. (Score:2)
Good heavens, why is this mod'd up to "insightful"?? If what this employee wants out of his job is such a calamity to his employeer -- "business cannot afford to keep on people that cannot grow with the business, and you can be sure that when they hired you, they thought you had the ability to grow, or they would not have hired you." -- then how is going to "find a job somewhere else" feasible, plausible, desirable or useful?
If it is possible for a different company to hire him on the basis that he's not interested in managing for them, then it's quite possible for is current employer to cope with the same reality.
And what's with this "selfish" nonsense? He's not working for this company out of a sense of charity -- he's there for the pay. Why is a company looking after its bottom line considered perfectly decent and acceptible, but for an employee to look after his own bottom line is a moral failing? What an absurd double standard.
They have already decided... (Score:2)
Bottom line: you have no future there. Accept that and plan your departure. If you quit, you get thirty seconds of warm glow for standing up to the bastards. Followed by n weeks of sitting at home playing freecell/quake with no money coming in.
Plan B says ask for the ultimatum in writing so that you can more completely understand your position. Then, whether or not you get the paper, decline the promotion. You will still be fired, but you will be eligible for unemployment benefits. As a plus, future bosses will appreciate an employee who is not a threat to their job.
Plan C (to be executed concurrently with your choice of A or B): start looking for a new job immediately. You are now the walking dead; beyond your sell-by date; a trouble-maker who can't be counted on; a non-team-player; an obstruction to "our path to the future". Get out.
The important thing to understand is that the job you were doing and enjoyed is a thing of the past. You have now entered the twilight zone called "they want you gone". The only thing you can do is leave in a controlled manner.
OK, plan D: offer a counter-proposal; you will save them the trouble of firing you if they will make a exit package of, say, six months salary and a letter stating you were laid off for lack of work. You won't get either, but it might be fun to watch somebody's face turn red while you ask.
Courage. There is a better world out there. Write when you find it.
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:2)
You mentioned that you are not adverse to it, as long as its short-term. Let them know that you wouldn't be adverse to taking a similar promotion in the future, after you have had more time to mature in your group. Make the case that you are still a "team player" and by keeping you in your current position the company gains more than in promoting you. Then look on the temp "promotion" as a way of learning if management is really as bad as you thought, perhaps if you can be a manager in your company and not give up the technical work you want to do. What you saw the past manager do, does not define the job.
Eric Nielsen
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:2)
Just be sure to do it quickly -- the tidal wave of ex-dotcommers is coming soon, and will make finding technology jobs that much harder. The fact that only 10% of them will be qualified for the jobs they're getting won't matter much; most employers hiring tech workers don't know the difference. (Think MCSE.)
Your management is making a very bad decision for their company by promoting you to a position you don't want to be in. Giving someone a job they don't want, especially one as important as an IT manager, guarantees that job will be done poorly and will cause many more headaches than it may seem to solve in the short run.
Of course, you might also consider that they really don't want you around, and this is just a creative way of getting rid of you. :-)
Up or Out (Score:2)
Four months into the job (during which I had tripled production over the previous idiots who had been managing that place) they told me that my old job had been "eliminated" and I should just stay there. Since my wife had a good job back home and we owned a nice house on a good bass fishing lake, I didn't take this well.
I reacted two ways. First of all I sent out resumes. Then I made sure that everyone I talked to in the Company heard the story. Since I had traveled to many Divisions in order to secure orders/parts for the Mexican Division, I had made quite a few new contacts. Soon the managers in these Divisions found their personnel reluctant to take temporary jobs outside their area.
Two weeks after being told my job was eliminated, I received a telephone call from them saying it was all a mistake and I had my old job back. I promoted my foreman to Production Manager and returned home in the six months time period.
Three months later I accepted a new job from one of the companies to which I had sent resumes. The new job paid twice the salary and offered many more benefits. When the Chief Engineer learned I was leaving he said, "you are prostituting yourself".
"No, John" I replied, "we all prostitute ourselves... I'm simply changing pimps."
Re:Ah, Take It... (Score:2)
Ah, Take It... (Score:2)
Stop being selfish, take the job. (Score:2)
Re:Think like an entreprenuer (Score:2)
Many on /. are anti-corporate by nature-- some from experience, others are still in school and get that from academia's generally anti-corporate outlook. There is a great deal of merit in some of the critiques-- in others, not so much. I personally think that corporations are the best mass social institution in history-- better than bureaucratic governments (their immediate predecessors), monarchies (similar, but with the wonders of heredity mixed in), or theocracies. There is much we don't like about them, but until there is something better, they are great to have.
iKantBelieve states in the part 'below the fold' (not in the headline) that when he refused the offer, they told him they would fire him if he didn't take the promotion, because this would demonstrate that he was 'unqualified'.
There are times when this is legitimate-- when you hire someone, you sometimes want a person who agrees in advance to the promotion (for instance, if you know that their boss will leave in six months). In that case, you put that on the table when the job offer is made.
As this was described, without reading anything into it, making this threat is improper. It may be ok from a legal point of view, but it is a shitty way to treat employees, and I know if I were put in a situation like that, I would be out as soon as the new offer came in. Not only because such a threat is in and of itself bad, but also because it is a symptom of how management treats its employees.
In my previous job, I was in government service, so YMMV. I do think the principle carries over... If your boss puts improper pressure on you once, he or she will do so again. Best to get out before it escalates, while you can get a recommendation and while you are still employed.
Personal Note (Score:2)
My objective in taking a job (I had owned my own company for five years) was to slow down, enjoy activities outside work, and to focus on new technologies. Within three months, I was CIO. How can this happen?
1) There is a person at the company that desperately wants to be the manager of the "programmers." Unfortunately, he has no business skills, poor communications (his writing is atrocious), and poor technical skills (although he does not know it). It was a choice between him or me for the position. None of the developers wanted the other person as a "boss." Therefore, I reluctantly stepped in.
2) The company was failing to deliver on projects. As arrogant as it sounds, two people at the company had the skills to turn-around the company. One, a very experienced developer and Unix guru, simply did not want the job and left the company. If I wanted to keep the company open, I was the alternate. The company needed someone who could install the methods needed to develop web applications, and I was the only one remaining with those skills (out of almost 20 developers -- kinda' scary).
In each case I made the following mistakes:
1) I was always an alternate. I did not seek or accept the promotion willingly.
2) I strayed from my original objective by allowing group commitment and company allegiance (actually feeling sorry for the owners) to cloud my judgement. It is not my company, and I need to focus on that fact.
3) I did not want to work for an idiot as my boss (this seems common in the industry so I will accept working-for-an-idiot as a possibility).
3) I needed to stand firm.
In summary, I am miserable. The management position is all that I do. Bickering, moronic project managers, sales staff with little or no technical knowledge (they know the buzz words, however), endless paperwork, endless meetings, sign-off-syndrome (where no one wants to take responsibility for an action so they pass the action up the chain to get sign-off to CYA), ever expanding and changing duties (do this; no do that; why wasn't this done), and a dwindling development staff face me every day.
My advice, do what you like and stick with it. The fear of being fired is real. It keeps me awake a lot. But is firing really the end of the world when I did not want the job in the first place? And if my bosses do not respect MY wishes, do I really want to work for them? Not having a job is scary but is this fear really worth trudjing to a job every day that you absolutely hate? When you could have taken a chance and obviated the problem?
There should be a compromise in your situation between you and the management. It will probably depend on how you present your side. Stay factual and level headed. Refrain from emotional statements. Spell out the plan: "Mr. Boss, I will assist you with the transition as an interim manager including searching for a new manager." Agree on an effective date for the interim manager transition -- the transition period is planned for three months. Have the boss announce the arrangement. This gives you leverage in the event that the boss does not live up to his end of the commitment. Be firm but not demanding. Never say, "I'll give you three months, or I am outta here." Remember, finding that new manager will be tough in this market. From what you describe, you have a recognized talent, maturity, and managerial capabilities. Use these skills to help you see both sides and tread that happy middle. In the absolute worst case, you find another job. I doubt you will get to the worst case. But the worst can happen, and you need to be prepared for it -- but don't make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Even though it may not seem like it, you are in the driver's seat. You can either give up the seat and go where the management steers you, or you can start driving. As hypocritical as it is for me to say it (considering I gave up the seat), I would vote for driving.
Just some thoughts.
How to do it (Score:2)
What you need is to insist on an administrative assistant who works directly for you. Somebody to handle the detail work. They need to be detail-oriented, have good organizational and social skills, but need not have a heavy technical background. Somebody who can take care of organizing the physical delivery of new equipment, handle non-technical dealings with vendors, take customer complaints and log them in, deal with minor office crises, and such.
The military uses sergeants in this way.
Re:Four times (Score:2)
Re:They are right. You are wrong. (Score:2)
Re:Up or Out (Score:2)
Re:Peter Principle (Score:2)
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Call their bluff _and_ put out your resume! (Score:2)
And instead, if he has any brains about this situation, he would have his resume out yesterday, and they'll end up having to hire two people instead. Ah, the short-sightedness of manglement.
I'm tempted to say that he should consult with a laywer immediately and see if there are any, ah, "legal remedies" should manglement be stupid enough to fire him after all. Then call their bluff and sit.
But it gets better. After they fire him, he should be ready to work as a consultant/independent contractor for them at three times your current pay. Because when you're fired, the company does not get the benefit of "two weeks notice" so you can leave things in order.
Oh, and unless there's just cause, in .us he gets to collect unemployment, and (IIRC) the company has to pay more into the state unemployment funds. I don't think anybody would consider this "just cause".
Any company clueless enough to pull that kind of crap is not the kind of company I would want to stay at.
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:2)
If you get to the point where you have interviewed at other companies, DO NOT accept a counteroffer or other peace offerings! You are obviously dealing with morons (which of course is rather common). I just got out of a situation where they don't bother to try to keep anyone happy until they decide to leave... It just doesn't work that way. You've got to keep your employees content all the time, not just when they decide to leave. Best of luck with the job search! (I pretty much expect your management to botch the situation.)
-bluebomber
It's their problem... (Score:2)
They're like most people, trying to find an easy solution, by promoting the nearest potentially qualified person, but since you don't want the job, they've still got a problem. Don't let them make it your problem.
And with supervisors like that, it's only a matter of time before something else screwy comes along. I'd start looking for something else if I were you...
Re:counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:2)
Think like an entreprenuer (Score:2)
Lawyers, threat of retribution and ultimatims are all counterproductive for you and your employer.
Re:Good management (Score:2)
Peter Principle (Score:2)
Admittedly, this is a highly cynical point-of-view. Most likely they think they are doing you a favor as it increases your worth in the company. I'm sure honest face to face meeting with the person you would be reporting to explaining your feelings regarding this promotion (i.e. going from a happy worker to a grumpy manager) they would probably reconsider. Also consider the fact they may not want to bring in someone above you out of fear you may react badly reporting to someone who knows less about the operation than you do. That would essentially be paying someone a significant salary who can't get the job done because of malice from below. Again, the answer is communication with upper management.
Re:They are right. You are wrong. (Score:2)
Hmm as senior techie (i.e. highest non-management) I have reached my peak. I am doing what I want to do!
I do not want management - I am first and foremost a programmer I do not want to stop programming just because some management lunatic reckons I lack ambition. Actually true I achieved my ambitions years ago - I work for enjoyment and money to live no other reason.
Management = increased bullshit, meetings, dumb projects/ideas that have to be shot down (which ironically I can do more effectively from my current position) and no time for the stuff I enjoy. Fortunately for me my senior management had the brains (and more importantly the experience) to know that I was more valuable where I was. Unfortunately they hired some jerk who talked bullshit and had an impressive resume but ruined our first conversation by asking whether jpeg were 8bit... This from a guy who supposedly worked at IBM and for Prodigy for years... I walked...
My thoughts (Score:2)
To a company, grunt work is easier to find than managerial talent. Managerial talent is what makes money, what makes the company work. By refusing the promotion, it looks to the company like you'll forever be a gruntworker--a dead end investment if you will. What in 5 years would make you worth more to the company? nothing. in fact, you'll probably be worth signifigantly less due to loss of knowledge and skill compared to the "young" crop of that time.
As a manager, you might have been good, you might have continually been promoted, and have been a great aid to making the company work--which would have been worthwhile, thus the promotion. As is, like I said, little chance of you personally increasing the companies value.
my condolences on your job if you do get fired, this situation is not right, though I do think I see where the company is coming from
Scott
Re:I wish I had that problem. (Score:2)
He's happy at the job he's at. He doesn't want to deal with some of the shit that comes with the job. So, a smart person would have him stay where he is, taking temporary duties until they found a permanent replacement.
Corporations are rarely smart when it comes to personnel decisions like this. As another example, they will often fire personnel to bring up short-term profits (not paying as many people) no matter how much it hurts long-term profits in lost worktime or training new personnel.
Stupid really.
Kierthos
astounding leap in logic (Score:2)
Without technical expertise there would be no technical company. Managerial expertise, on the other hand, may or may not be necessary to keep things running smoothly.
For example, in many professional offices (doctors, lawyers, engineering consulting), there is no separate management. And a 6-8 person office with technical experts may well operate more like a professional office than a big, old-style hierarhical company. And it will fail if its technical talent isn't top notch.
Your employer has revealed their true character... (Score:2)
ETHICAL employers balance the need of the company against the welfare of the employees. While it is true that employers have an ethical obligation to offer career advancement to all employees, this should never be proffered under duress. Doing so only embitters and dissillusions good people, because of the selfish nature of the act.
In situations that I have seen this occur, the primary motivating factor was one or more senior managers or VPs that were more interested in the advancement of their PERSONAL careers or wealth than the general welfare of the company or it's employees.
Sadly, there are only two solutions to your predicament:
1) Identify and sit down personally with culprits and explain to them WHY what they are doing is unethical, then repeat your offer to help select and train a new manager.
2) Vote with your feet.
Don't hold out much hope that number one will work, because the individuals involved would be forced to admit their own fallability and that's not easy for most individuals to do. If they are intelligent and ethical individuals, they will quickly come to see the error of their plan. But then again, why would they have come up with such a plan in the first place?
Hope this helps!
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
Heres an Idea (Score:2)
To play Devil's Advocate.. (Score:2)
Seen in this light, the case for promotion -- even enforced promotion -- seems to me to hold water. The technician who is unwilling to move up to a management decision might be seen to be indicating that he or she is unwilling to make sacrifices or compromises for the good of the company. Obviously, there might be legitimate reasons for not wanting to make the move -- a lack of confidence in one's people skills, inexperience in managing projects, and so forth -- but the original question provided rather more selfish motives -- satisfaction with the current level of responsibility, etc. That's all very well, but it's important to undertand that the primary purpose of a company is not purely keeping its employees happy, and damning the consequences. I think it's quite legitimate for a company to conclude that a lack of desire from an individual to help the company by taking on a more senior role is incongruous with the aims and concerns of the company in question.
Companies do succeed or fail, in a very real way, on the strength of their workforce, on the "fit". But it's important to understand that maintaining the ideal workforce is not merely a case of making sure everyone's happy, but rather of making sure that the right people are doing the right jobs, and that those people are dedicated employees with a real desire for the success of the company. Even now, with the growing disillusionment with the "new economy", there's the feeling amongst many techies that the "right thing" to do is to jump from job to job, going for whatever benefits are available and kicking up a fuss whenever things get a little awkard -- the success of the company is seldom considered. I personally think this is a dangerous attitude. Better, surely, to work for a company in which you have a real belief, and for which you'll work nail-and-tooth, even if that means a change from what you've been doing. Oh, and I do think it's naive to think of management's role as a superfluous one: while all the meetings, documents and other stuff that come as a part of management can doubtless be something of a pain, they're also often a very necessary evil. Besides, with responsibility comes opportunity to change the way things work -- so grab the bull by the horns, and do something to make the company you work for a better place with better product. You might even enjoy it... and it'll look great on the resume..
Managing IT (Score:2)
In my company, the job of IT manager falls to a nongeek With Clue person whose job is to (a) keep IT staff from drive-by taskings. That is, make sure the longterm goals don't suffer from day-to-day five minute help projects; (b) to act as the Guido bodyguard (interpreter/buffer zone) between IT and management , and (c) keep aware of what we're all working on, making sure it contributes to The Big Picture.
Rather than bring in a new Alpha, you might want to suggest they bring in someone who can perform the management functions and leave the tech to you.
Re:Unwanted Promotion (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, but I do tech support for a human resources group, and that's what the folks here tell me. So yes, they can fire him, but they are idiots to do so (Two open positions instead of one). I think they are just trying to pressure him into accepting.
Re:Why this is done (Score:3)
My problem with this response is that it denies the possibility that competent people could be interested in expanding their skill sets and meeting new challenges, but not interested in management.
Just because we're not in a field where we customarily work in isolation doesn't mean that we all have a desire to manage others in our field after we reach a certain level of development. Why do you feel a lack of interest in a management career path equates to a lack of interest in all professional development?
Furthermore, you're probably aware of the "Peter Principle"--essentially the argument that the typical career track moves people ahead until they're in a position that they're not quite competent in, and strands them there. In practice, this usually manifests itself as moving people who are brilliant workers out of their field and into positions where they are managing the workers in their field.
Can you say for sure that Don Knuth, Linus Torvalds or Dennis Ritchie would be great managers? I certainly can't. And I don't think that that "lack" would be a true weakness on their part. If someone is interested in more of a development and research role, that's what they should be looking for. Perhaps their "track" should lead them not to group management as such, but to development director, strategic planner or senior researcher. But moving into a role they're not comfortable with doesn't benefit either them or the company, does it?
In this particular case, accepting the position might not be a bad thing politically--but getting out of it as quickly as possible would be the next logical goal, whether it was a move within that company or out.
Its lose lose. But... (Score:3)
Be the guy who hires the second in command. Then... this is where things get tricky. After the 2nd in command is hired: switch positions with him. You get your old job back - and you just hired your new manager so you have the least chance to complain about your new manager - you hired 'em.
Good luck.
From the Tao of Programming... (Score:3)
The manager tried to give the programmer a bonus, but the programmer refused it, saying, "I wrote the program because I though it was an interesting concept, and thus I expect no reward."
The manager, upon hearing this, remarked, "This programmer, though he holds a position of small esteem, understands well the proper duty of an employee. Lets promote him to the exalted position of management consultant!"
But when told this, the programmer once more refused, saying, "I exist so that I can program. If I were promoted, I would do nothing but waste everyone's time. Can I go now? I have a program that I'm working one."
I protest your logic. (apologies) (Score:3)
Probably not as true for a large company. From what I've seen, its just the reverse. Management is everywhere. But it takes forever to find a competent DBA or SA.
By refusing the promotion, it looks to the company like you'll forever be a gruntworker--a dead end investment if you will. What in 5 years would make you worth more to the company? nothing. in fact, you'll probably be worth signifigantly less due to loss of knowledge and skill compared to the "young" crop of that time.
I'll dispute the logic here you use to justify your argument. As long as I keep my job skills up, there is no reason to even consider management until I get into my 40's. Technical specialization really helps here. Does any company running Oracle think they need to get rid of their DBAs five years down the road?
Why this is done (Score:3)
Here are two reasons your employer likely holds - one valid, one not.
Valid: If they hire replacements to work beneath you, with you taking the promotion, they can hire cheap labor. If they need to hire someone qualified to work above you, they need to pay your wage or better up front.
Not Valid: If you don't want to take the promotion, they see you as less than 100% dedicated to your work. A disinterest in becoming more involved with the company's core functioning is seen as an gross manifestation of that lack of dedication and likely a slap in the face to those above you who have worked hard to get there.
If you're lucky, you may be able to work past the second by laying down exactly what you can accomplish in your current capacity that you cannot accomplish in the new position. Making an effort to express your position as concisely and absolutely as possible may save your job.
If the first is more the issue, you may be screwed. If they're trying to turn you from an expensive worker into an inexpensive manager, that's going to be hard to fight.
More, valid reasons why this is done. (Score:3)
There are LOTS of other valid reasons:
* When NewGuy enters, you are his de facto superior. You are qualified to do the job; heck, you were doing it on a temporary basis. You have more experience within the company, making you likely better at the job than NewGuy. In short, you'd be a hard person to manage.
* And then there's the part about changing horses mid-stream. You can do the job as your boss did it. NewGuy cannot, but he'd be managing a guy who could. In fact, you'd work well without a manager, but how many of your co-workers would? You may have to re-learn how to do your job. It'd be cheaper and easier to just hire someone else.
* Imagine the execs explaining to potential NewGuys that you hold the job but don't want it. Either (a) the job looks crappy or (b) you are painted as inept. Either way, the solution is simple; sionara to you.
* The position you currently fill is easily replacable, provided that your replacement is hired long-term. If you take a temporary promotion, they still need someone to do the job you were doing. It'd be easier to hire someone to do that on a permanent basis. It isn't that they want you gone, but that they have no choice but to hire your replacement.
I am certain there are plenty of valid reasons.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Mgmt Reasons (Score:3)
1. Hire from outside the department. No matter how good they guy is he'll take time learning the ropes and getting to know the employees. And until that guy gets up to speed, he'll be useless.
2. Promote from within the department. The new manager will already know the technical ropes and the learning curve on the mgmt ropes wouldn't take as long as with a new guy. Then you hire a low level new guy and everybody moves up a notch.
#2 certainly seems the better option for the business as long as the person tapped is willing to do it.
Had this happen to my boss... (Score:3)
...when I was hired in to my company, there was no manager for our small group. We're weird ducks anyway--a commercial products group based inside a NASA/DoD contractor [tbe.com], and no one wanted to do anything with us. Corporate tried to make my boss--a damned good project engineer--into the manager. I like the guy a lot, but he'll tell you that he's no manager-type. It does take a certain type of person to manage other people, and that's not always the #2 guy.
What happened? My boss held the job strictly on a temporary basis, we got a guy hired into the job, and things went back to A-OK. The "new guy" kept the heat off of the engineers and also brought some new insights in.
So, there's a lesson in this: Tell the PHB's to bring in someone new to the group. A manager doesn't have to know all about your group's work. A manager does have to communicate well with those horizontal and vertical to them. So explain how you're not qualified to take the job but very qualified to stay where you are. Good luck!
--
No you don't, 'cuz they *really* want to fire you. (Score:4)
(1)Since he does his job well, he always gets his raise at his annual (or more frequent) review.
(2) Since he's been there a long time, he's gotten many raises.
(3) Therefore, he is now waaaay overpaid compared to anyone else in his department, since the other workers are new, or left after a 2-3 years for greener pastures, while he has been there 6, 10, or more years.
But firing him for doing his job would be too evil. Cutting his pay for doing his job is even more evil. So what is an "honourable" way to get rid of him?
Promote him into incompetance! Keep promoting him and adding responsibilities until he can't handle it and becomes incompetent in his new duties. Then you can safely fire him for not being able to do his job. Hey! It'll be *his* fault, right? Wow, aren't we the clever Mgmt folk!
However, if he refuses promotions, though, he's obviously on to Our Plan, and will be fired for outthinking Mgmt and making us look dumb and therefore creating a "hostile" work environment.
Four times (Score:4)
At three of the companies it was a bluff; they didn't want to lose me and all stayed fine.
At the fourth, they DID fire me. I had a job within a month that paid nearly twice as much and had better working conditions. I later found out (after the company folded six months later) the real reason they dumped me: they were planning some manifestly illegal activities and wanted me on the "inside" rather than in a position where I might ask difficult questions. Their firing me had NO adverse effect on my job hunt. One place wondered aloud why I'd stayed there so long. Evidently the company had gotten a reputation as being run by jerks and idiots. Interviewees were suspect if they'd stayed there more than a year or two, so getting dumped was actually in my favor.
I have never regretted turning down positions I didn't want, and I've been pushed toward them many more times than four. It's just those four that closely match your situation. In the case of the other three companies, I found that they respected me MORE after my refusals. Two of them gave me larger raises than usual immediately, all seemed to place more trust in my judgement afterwards.
Not a good idea to threaten your boss... (Score:5)
If I feel my compensation and/or benefits are not what they should be I approach my current supervisor and in a reasonable but assertive fashion discuss what changes I think need to be made. At no point in the discussion do I imply that these changes had better get made or I'm gone.
After that I let my supervisor run with it for approximately two weeks at which point I touch base with them again.
Based on this second meeting I either get a sense that things have a chance of going my way or conversely I quietly begin my search for the next position.
Since a job search can take a month or two (to find the right position) you may end up being pleasantly surprised by being called into your supervisor's office to learn that you got what you asked for and that it just took a bit for the corporate wheels to turn.
If this doesn't happen then no big deal as you have begun you job search in earnest and are probably close to securing a new position.
In fact if you're smart you're are preparing yourself to leave your current position by:
* Quietly migrating all personal possessions
at work back home.
* Making copies of useful work/documents you
have created while on the current job.
* Stealing office supplies/equipment...
All this is done quietly a bit at a time over several weeks prior to leaving.
Then finally, when you land your shiny new job, you can go into your supervisor's office, submit your letter of resignation and be prepared for that to be your last minute of employment at that company and be comfortable with the knowledge there is nothing left undone, except to walk out the door.
This approach has worked for me in both management and hands on technical positions.
I would also advise anyone to resist the temptation of "short-timeritious". Do your job well right up to the end of your employment at a given company. Leave everyone with a good impression because its a strangely small world in this industry.
Don't burn bridges or remove someone as a possible reference if you can help it.
Don't worry (Score:5)
In the worst case you can go find a new job in a short period of time. They are only shooting themselves in the foot if they fire you because not only can you likely sue them, they will then be losing TWO people at the top of their IT department instead of just one. They will then incur two times the costs to hire replacements, they will incur more 'downtime' with the new IT manager because he won't have you to learn the shop from and if they have to replace you as well, that is another person who has to come in and learn the shop and your software. They really don't want to have two new people to bring up to speed at once, because that will severely impact the work of at least one or two others. So in all reality, for a while they will be more than two people short staffed.
That being said... One thing you can do is offer to do the job on an interim basis and help them find the new IT manager in the mean time. That may not be the most fun thing in the world, but it makes it look like you are taking an active role in dealing with the situation and as a bonus, it gives you some control to hopefully get someone in who you can get along with. Basically, they make take 'no' more easily if they are off the hook from having to find a replacement manager, especially if you can do it without them having to pay big headhunter's fees. Start tapping your contact pool to see if you can find someone who might be qualified.
One of their possible motives for trying to force promote you is that they may think that they can offer you less of a salary increase than what they'd have to pay a new hire as manager. You shouldn't let them do that. If you get forced into taking the promotion, you should demand more than what the previous manager was getting. Then even if you hate it and end up quitting, you will at least have gotten some bucks out of the deal, a little resume padding and a bump in your salary history that will hopefully land you a better job and more pay later.
Re:Think like an entreprenuer (Score:5)
I disagree on this one. Your idea is the right way to do it, if the management had handled the situation maturely from the start. They have handled the situation in a terribly unprofessional way, and these are not people you will want to continue working with.
Any 'heroism' you might display in saving the department would likely be ignored by these people. They obviously appreciate your skills enough to want to promote you now-- a lot of good that has done you.
Don't roll the dice of having them fire you. Instead, begin circulating your resume, and have a job offer ready. If you can't stall them any longer, leave. If you get a good offer-- even at the same pay as now-- take it. Don't get into bid and counterbid. Your current employer has taken a step which demands that you leave within the next 30 days anyway.
It isn't easy, I know, to leave your job for something new. But you have to recognize when that step is necessary and find the will to act on it. I've watched a lot of friends stay in bad situations out of momentum when they knew it was time to go. It never pays off.
counter with your own ulitmatum (Score:5)
If a reasonable discussion does not begin immediately, start sending out your resume. When you get back a stack of interview requests, go back to Management and show them the physical evidence of the interest in your talents. Go to the interviews. When you get an offer, show it to Management. If they still do nothing, they really want you gone. More likely, though, at some point before you get an offer elsewhere they will get nervous about losing you entirely and start to be reasonable.
--
MailOne [openone.com]