I
had contented myself that it could go either way and prepared myself
for a shock. The implication to my self-esteem and standing to not
get a post verses the potential stress and demands that would be
placed upon me if I was successful(?) From
the first day the Management of Change process was announced I was
never really sure that I wanted a senior position, so with a few days
hindsight perhaps they were right to not give me a post after all?
That
doesn't stop the hurt, rejection and shame.
It
is necessary to have an explanation, so I need to ask why? Request a
copy of my scoring, the justification about how it was achieved and
comparable scores with similar colleagues. How can I move on, address
any issues raised and improve, if I don't receive adequate guidance?
Then
and only then can I truly believe that it was as equitable,
transparent and fair as they continue to say it was. And every time
they uttered this disputed fact, the less I believed them. The first
time it was said by MM I had to bite my tongue so hard to avoid
screaming out …
“You're
lying!!!”
It's
not been handled well by any means, from the issue of the first piece
of information to the approaching end of the process (at this point).
Factually inaccurate information, dismissal of potential pay
protection, staff not being contacted in good time, wrong contact
details recorded and when challenged not being able to provide
necessary information there and then.
In
the main they have appointed exceptional & deserving staff, but
there are a few who have less experience, less skills, less time
qualified and are less popular. They often say less is more, maybe
it's true after all?
No comments:
Post a Comment