When managers are not strict

“Go back to your previous company lah. It’s actually a very good company,” an ex-colleague told me.

“Then why did you leave?” I asked him. He was from the same company as mine!

“Ahahaha.. I was bored already. Go back lah, work hard or not, you won’t be fired there.”

That’s certainly true on his last statement. A lot of staffs who didn’t perform up to par had stayed longer than me and became senior, some converted to permanent and earn big bucks. With swinging legs and reading magazines. Life is fun.

Ah.. no need to be jealous. They had done their deed.

When managers do not monitor their staffs, let them know when they have done a great job or screwed up, the staffs feel that their efforts are not counted. So why work so hard? After all, it’s the lazy play hard, work smart who gets promoted.

Why am I such a cynic now?

There are great leaders who are managers. Companies who take steps to maintain good staff and give chance to performing below par employees to buck up. Companies who kick out bad employees.

It’s there here.

Do history in job experiences matter that much?

Why do interviewers look at potential employees’ history in job experiences?

People look for another job/career because they are not satisfied with the current/previous job. How would interviewers like them to answer? That this company is really great, way much better than the current company? That the old manager had been abusive? That it’s time to leave the restriction of living with family/husband/wife?

1 of the rules in interview is not to talk bad about your previous/current job, company, colleagues and bosses. Because they think you would do the same to this company if you join it. But did they (interviewers) think that the environment and dynamics would remain the same? Then why would it repeat again? We like to see it’s not our fault, it’s always their fault, don’t we?

If it’s a person’s flaw or need to change jobs often without external reasons, then that’s another case.

Interviewers may also forget that potential employees (and even themselves) could’ve disliked the previous jobs yet they are judged on the new position by history. Just because the interviewers could not find another way to predict how a person would perform in the new job. Isn’t that funny? Considering the companies are different and sometimes, job description, time, location and industry differ too.

Most new grads who do not have working experience started out blur and then only learned to be wiser and discriminative.

Wouldn’t it be better if companies give a really short probation duration where they are given tasks for the job with brief training? This can get info on how they perform from their skills and abilities without 100% training from the company. After this, the employee is selected and then fully trained.

The issue with this is it needs time, manpower (who would provide the brief training and select tasks/program) and $. Most companies are not willing to spend more for long term success – they want it now yet they are willing to go on low manpower (better yet, can save $) and delay efficiency.

Or like mentioned in Fast Company – Careers: Why Traditional Job Interviews Don’t Work, interviewers should allocate time to get the potential employees to show how they perform for the job they applied. If they applied for sales person, then get them to sell a product that your company sells. If they applied for visual merchandizing, give them a range of products and let them arrange the display. Let them explain why they displayed it like that.