Right, but a few weeks after you quit the company is going to fail? So what’s the difference?
The point is, you should be looking for a new job. And you don’t have to keep up your pace at work, because you’re halfway out the door.
Seriously, if the company is going to fail because you slacked off for a couple of weeks, then the company could fail even if you continue your Stakhanovite act. The company is so close to failure that they’re literally three weeks away from closing the doors if you merely put in a normal schedule?
Because that seems ridiculous. I mean, maybe it’s true, but could it be that you’ve got an overdeveloped sense of your own importance? Like, maybe they’ll struggle without you, but they’ll muddle along somehow?
You can’t accept responsibility for keeping the company afloat unless you have the authority to do the things needed to keep the company afloat. You don’t have the authority, so you don’t have the responsibility.
Who cares if the company implodes after you leave? The company sucks, yes? You can’t go back there, you’ve claimed it is literally killing you. So forget that.
You have the incorrect impression that all managers think managers in other companies are brilliant and wonderful, and there must be something wrong with someone who quits. Actually all managers know there are lots of idiots out there. Assuming Bob has a good track record, and can interview well, this won’t hurt,
One way of saying it is "I was really invested in making things work there, but I could not get the resources to do so. " As I said, if the new employer knows anything about the old, there will be no problem at all.
No. Bob is not a superhero. The world is not on his shoulders. If taking a long delayed one week vacation or working only 50 hours a week makes the company fail, then it is the responsibility of the board and the CEO, not Bob. If Bob getting run over by a truck would make the company fail, ditto. Same as if someone offers Bob a decent job and he quits with two week notice. Do you think he should stay for months to keep the company afloat in that situation?
Unless Bob is an owner of this company, he shouldn’t really care if it fails. And I assure you that even if it does no one outside is going to blame a 37 hour a week man for it. The board and CEO are responsible, and they are probably at least part owners. If they don’t care, why should Bob?
BTW, how many people work at this company, more or less. Is it like 10 or is it hundreds?
There’s only one thing that ever gives employees leverage over their employers, and that’s financial security. If you don’t have it, then any demands you make are just a bluff.
Sell the home. Sell the cars. Cut the luxuries. Then, suck it up for as long as you can to build a buffer. Living month-to-month as a senior manager is a ridiculous state of affairs even for someone not in such a precarious position.
Then and only then can you make real threats. You’ll find out quickly if they see you as indispensable. Given the obvious irrationality and incompetence of upper management, I doubt you could really make solid predictions one way or another.
Before I quit the rat-race, I was in a similar position. Except I wasn’t the manager, I was the irreplaceable talent with a manipulative, incompetent manager, a bat-shit crazy head of HR, and an abusive board of executives. It’s similar to domestic abuse, I suppose, they slowly break you down until you don’t know which way is up. I finally just walked out one day. Best thing I ever did, although the rocky financial straits for the next two years were not fun. It was kind of fun hearing from the co-workers about the struggles of the company after I left.
Bob should try a different exit strategy. Go now before you break, and with something to go to.
Sounds like Bob has to eat a lot of shit. I used to eat a lot of shit. That is, until I found out where it came from. Turns out it just comes from some asshole. After that, I didn’t care for the taste.
Does Bob have significant equity in the company? Than what does he care? Really for Bob the company going under is best case scenario. Plus if he really is so important that the lack of his presence will cause financial collapse, he should be negotiating for a bonus
like he’s Derek Jeter or something.
Oh another thing. If quitting your job will leave you “financially ruined”, you might want to consider reducing your nut a bit. I presume a senior manager who reports directly to the CEO makes enough that he doesn’t have to live paycheck to paycheck? Start cutting and saving expenses now.
Be creative: “I experienced a workforce imbalance correction and elected to transition to a new role in the home office.” Hell, if Donald Trump can claim that he’s a finance genius and successful real estate entrepreneur, you can explain termination in suitably purple prose, especially if the company is truly foundering in your wake.
And I have to say, every time I’ve been RIF’d from a foundering company (three times) it has been an enormous relief, albeit followed by some soul searching about what I’m doing, why I’m doing it, and when I’m going to buckle down and actually write the Pynchon-esque novel that has been assembling itself in my subconscious for the last couple of decades.
If this company and its managment are half as shitty as they sound, you are doing both yourself and them a service in putting them to the decision to either fix the fundamental problems or escort you to the door. But nobody on a quasi-anonymous message board can make that decision for you. Either nut up or keep suckling, but you can’t complain with your mouth firmly on this company’s tit.
Seniority of position in the chart isn’t a 100% indicator of excellent remuneration. In this case, the reporting structure is this way at least partly because the CEO likes to micromanage (which is part of the actual problem)
Anyway, I’m not going to let this [del]turn into[/del] continue on as one of those threads where the OP poses a question, then answers ‘Yes, but…’ to every response. There has been some useful information and advice here. Thank you.
In Silicon Valley, at least, many if not most managers have been RIFed at one time or another. It is no longer a mark of shame.
In any case everyone is quite right about not mentioning it. If you get laid off in a big reduction you can, that is no shame. In Bob’s case he could just say that he and the CEO who he reported to had a disagreement about the resources required for the job.
If someone gets laid off every two years or so, then we worry.
Kafka is a bit too surrealistic and metaphorical to match my style. I kind of prefer the more manic intensity, cultural referentialism, genre-bending, and combination of subtle and broad humor that is Pynchon, Joseph Heller, or Douglas Adams, or the screenplays of Charlie Kaufman. “You don’t know how lucky you are being a monkey. Because consciousness is a terrible curse. I think. I feel. I suffer. And all I ask in return is the opportunity to do my work. And they won’t allow it. Because I raise issues.”
Is Bob’s position exempt or non-exempt? “Exempt” in this case meaning “we can make you work however many hours it takes to get the job done and not pay you overtime”. At a senior management level, that’s highly likely to be the case - and theoretically “paid for 37 hours” isn’t precisely true - that’s probably just the company’s official work week. In any case, there’s nothing illegal about it if the job is classified as exempt. Theoretically he could even work fewer than 37 some weeks and still get paid, though in practice (I’ve always been exempt since graduating college) you have to take leave time if you do that.
And if I were Bob, I’d definitely look for something. The job is killing him. It might take a while, but even with a pay cut his life would be SO much better than it is now.
ETA: reread and realized that Bob is most likely in the UK and the US concepts of “exempt” do not apply. I would still bet that at a certain level of management, you’re expected to “do what it takes” hours-wise.
I’m confused. I thought Bob had insurance for involuntary termination. Doesn’t the company closing its doors count as “involuntary termination”? If so, then it’s not the same outcome.