Maria has organised an assessment centre for a new Sales Manager. The intention is to interview six candidates, two internal. The process includes a number of exercises including a role play exercise in handling under-performing sales people, handling meetings, preparing sales reports as well as an interview. The day will be observed by a number of managers chosen from the Sales Director’s departmental responsibilities.

The Sales Director has elected not to be involved as he wants to distance himself from the selection procedure as the two internal candidates are already under notice of redundancy from his department.

There is one problem. It seems that a member of staff has found an email in a photo-copyer from the Sales Director to Maria stating that he’s not prepared to have either of the two existing staff members gain the job and a copy of the assessment centre exercises.

A copy of the email has found its way to one of the candidates. 

John has been with the department a few weeks and already he’s had to deal with some complicated issues surrounding policies on expenses and past claims as well as dealt with a number of return to work issues.
Already the MD is seeking out his advice.

It’s also been noticed that John is a great networker and has many friends in the media and newspapers through his father who is a producer at the BBC. His own network including many from his past companies as well as CIPD.

John previously worked in Maria’s HR Department in her previous company.
John is a qualified member of the CIPD as well as having a degree from Reading University.
He is currently half way through a MBA course.
John is single having just split from his girlfriend, plays golf, swims and likes collecting foreign banknotes.

The existing team thinks he’s very nice but are concerned as to how Maria and the new hire will act together.
Christine is particularly concerned as to her own position within the Department as she’s concluded that Maria doesn’t like her.

At a meeting this afternoon with the MD Maria was told that her performance was not what had been anticipated.The MD told her that:

1. She has alienated her team
2. Provided poor advice to him and other Directors.

He has offered to help where he can but has suggested that the efficiency and reputation of HR must improve quickly or further action (unspecified) will have to follow.

Maria has replied that her existing team is “weak on change” but that her new assistant manager starts next week and that improvements will be expected soon after.

Maria has been informed that a member of staff has complained that a disciplinary meeting conducted by Maria did not follow the ACAS code of conduct set out in April 2009 relatinmg to the calling of witnesses.

Maria has been told that the employee, who has now left the company, is making a claim for wrongful dismissal and the solicitor is wanting to move to tribunal. The CEO feels that compensation will have to be made to the employee and is placing the blame entirely at Maria’s feet for not being aware of disciplinary changes in procedure. Maria claims that the new procedure was only guidance.

As the employee was a direct report to the Sales Director it seems that she is unlikely to get any support from that direction.

Maria has announced to her team that she has finalised the restructure of the team roles and announced them to her team.

She is also bringing in a “Senior Assistant” to act as her deputy. Probably from her previous company

Two members of Maria’s team have made appointments with her to say that they feel that Maria is treating her assistant, Christine, unfairly. Maria rejected their comments and told them to mind their own business. After the meeting Maria then spoke to Christine and said that she was surprised that Christine had “to get others to fight her battles for her” and accused her of having no backbone!

Maria seems to be painting herself into a corner with her team who now view her treatment of her assistant as being unfair and bullying. Her team also suspects that Maria would like to replace Christine with the Assistant HR manager from her previous company.

The morale in the HR department has fallen and work is generally done in silence whilst Maria is present and the moment she leaves the Department discussion tales place about her poor management style. 

Maria has held a departmental staff meeting and told her team that she is conscious that Christine (her assistant) is overworked and under pressure and is therefore removing some of her responsibilities. The result is that Christine will undertake fewer new staff interviews and more research. Maria will delegate staff interviews amongst the other team members as people are available. Christine sees this as a removal of a key part of her job and the scope of her work has been reduced.

This afternoon Maria has a meeting with the Sales Director and Project Manager to look at restructuring the remaining areas of the sales force. The meeting will identify those posts and branches in the north of England that The Sales Director wants to merge and reduce the headcount by three managers and five sales administration staff. Maria is being consulted to advise on retaining the people that the Sales Manager wants to retain whilst “letting go” those he sees as being less capable.

Maria is blaming her team for her recent loss of face by advising her to cancel the free lunches for part-time staff, only to have to reverse the decision once the CEO’s wife, a part-time worker, failed to give the CEO his dinner. (See previous posts).

It seems that she has targeted her wrath onto her Assistant Manager, Christine, and reduced Christine to tears as she told her that no one liked her or respected her work! Maria has left work to go home early but Christine is receiving tea and sympathy from outraged members of Maria’s HR department.

After having to reverse her decision to cancel lunch for part time staff (see previous post) Maria is defending herself to anyone that will listen and complaining about being made to “look stupid by the CEO”.

What is interesting is that the incident is viewed as being mildly amusing by most people, who attach no blame to herself, but as Maria continues to defend herself for the error she’s seen as alienating the CEO. The consequences of this are that those people who would normally support her are gravitating towards the CEO. Perhaps others are detecting that support for Maria from the CEO is beginning to fade?