Topic: A can of worms.. the right way? (Page 1 of 1)

Hello all. Got a special one at hands.

Say agency A assigns agents to various companies.
Agent arg.. er, I mean, "a friend of mine" (coughcoughcough), kept a personal connection with a prominent member, "Mata Hari" for our story, of mission xxx.

Mata Hari reports privately to agent "friend of mine" that a complaint has been filed due to my friend's improper replacement
and the results thereof, eg. unsatisfied customers who still ask about agent "friend", and that some high representative will soon hold a gathering about the issue.

Should I (er, my friend) warn my company proactively? Like "hey guys, something smells down there.."?
Why / why not? Ethically and politically, it seems tricky, but I perceive it as my duty, one of clarity.

Um, ah... so, your 'friend' was replaced, and the client (or client's customers) aren't happy with the replacement?

Say nothing. When it comes back to you, shrug your shoulders and say something like "this is what happens when you settle for second best", then demand a pay rise. Behave as if you knew all along that there would be problems (of course, you were informed), but you thought your management would be capable of dealing with the situation. Suggest the management team be fired, and that you take over at a premium. Suggest that your co-workers and colleagues worship you daily at a predetermined time.

It worked for me. I'm a Lord High-Priest of Conversions at Microsoft now...




...okay, I'm joking.

It's not exactly the situation : I should specify that my "friend" requested to be replaced because he saw it coming,
the work overload and the human resource nonsense, and they were left, after being politely asked, with 2 options
(literally) : MOVE or FIRE.

I did not want to be on the front line when "finding a black sheep" season would come.

(oh, btw I read your post down to "ask for a raise" because that is next, for real, but I had never thought about this one :
Suggest that your co-workers and colleagues worship you daily at a predetermined time.

Probably because I assumed they were worshipping little statues back home after work already. Oh well..)

(Edited by argo navis on 10-29-2007 18:58)

ok...I'm either tired or just not able to make sense out of what you are saying.

Your friend worked for a company, through an agency, and was given the choice to either be fired or move to a different company/department within the same company?

Now, this company that your friend used to be employed with has since been given a replacement through the agency. However, this company is not happy with the replacement person.

Since your friend keeps in contact with someone at the previous place of employment, your friend has gotten word about this unhappiness with the replacement person. And now, you want to know if your friend should tell the agency that the company is not happy with their replacement?

Before I go any further, clarify that

Later,

C:\

Hint: I think he is his friend... (lol)

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

Hint: I think he is his friend... (lol)

---

hehe...yeah. I got that I was just trying to figure the rest of it out LOL

Later,

C:\

Well, my friend is me (ohmy) and :
>> and was given the choice to either be fired or move to a different company/department within the same company?

No, he said "move me somewhere else OR please fire me". I mean, I said that, because the position
was becoming irrealistic to handle for one person only - budget restrictions too much.

Right - so 'Company' had unrealistic expectations of 'Individual'; 'Individual' asked to be moved before he/she lost his/her marbles; 'Replacement' was sent in; 'Replacement' is less able to meet unrealistic demands; 'Company' is unhappy with 'Replacement'; 'Individual' is aware that 'Company' is unhappy with 'Replacement', and wonders if 'Agency' should be informed by 'Individual' before 'Company' takes measures of a detrimental nature to 'Agency'..?

If this is the case, then what would 'Individual' achieve by pre-empting 'Company'? Informing 'Agency' that 'Company' has an issue that is not the fault of 'Replacement', perhaps?

As a damage control exercise, it might be prudent to air the issue before it is seen by 'Agency' as the fault of either 'Individual' or 'Replacement' that 'Company' may soon express displeasure with the performance of personnel sent by 'Agency'.

Or have I got this completely tits-up?

No worries, you got this one tits-down so we're fine

It's exactly it :

quote:

---

If this is the case, then what would 'Individual' achieve by pre-empting 'Company'? Informing 'Agency' that 'Company' has an issue that is not the fault of 'Replacement', perhaps?

---

Individual apparently achieved b, yes, and mostly, he achieved giving commercial weapons to "Agency", as they could prepare their defense "against" company.
This results, starting next year, in two new head counts in "company" provided by "agency"

So, quite tedious, yeah, and I did what I did, yeah. It turned out HELPING in the end.
Due to my dedication, and my dedication to myself
when I saw I was loosing my marbles, a total of 5 head counts have been added to the development team over a year.


Oh yeah I lost credit by one or two of the managers when pointing out the flaws of their pissy poor approach.
But in the end, I am in a better position, they got more money and people for the project, and I have defined a quality standard for missions like this.

All this by the time I managed to make my question clear

HAPPY ME!