Lack of Ethics, Substandard Training, and Poor Judgment - Anonymous employee Co-Operative Industries Aerospace Employee Review

Lack of Ethics, Substandard Training, and Poor Judgment This company has a very serious problem with the way in which business is conducted. Managers and leads (supervisors) conduct themselves in a completely abhorrent fashion with regard to their employees. Certain managers at this company have a propensity for unfairly terminating employees. Employees can work hard, contribute to a team, and make improvements, yet when company goals are not met, something incidental goes wrong, or when there is a perception of wrongdoing, these managers will terminate an employee. They will not communicate, investigate problems, issue an adequate number of warnings (if any), and they will not take the necessary steps to properly train a struggling employee in order to combat lack in productivity. These managers are indifferent to the plight of employees who sacrifice in order to achieve goals, both professional and personal. This company is doing its employees a disservice as they are being woefully mismanaged and mistreated. A case in point of the depraved nature of these managers can be given to one particular employee who was wrongly terminated. This employee made significant improvements and contributed immensely to their department. They were praised by their department manager, but just weeks later fired and told that their performance had been sub-standard for months. Was the department manager telling the truth weeks prior to the employee being terminated or was the department manager telling the truth during the employee’s termination? This is an example of the dishonesty of these managers; lying is not beneath them and they are obviously not concerned with their character or reputation. Making employees the scapegoats for their shortcomings and failures does not weigh on their conscience and is not viewed as unethical. Additionally, the department manager repeatedly told the employee and the department employees over the course of several months at various times during the workweek and during department meetings that the department was “looking good”, “we’re getting there”, and “we’re improving.” If an employee’s performance was insufficient, a department was struggling, or if there were any issues at all, why did the department manager make these statements? Was there a valid issue or not? If there was an issue, the onus is on the manager for not communicating the problem to the employees. Furthermore, with regard to communication and improving business, this manager never gave the terminated employee their annual employee performance evaluation. So another opportunity for improvement was squandered and a few weeks later the employee was terminated. Department meetings and annual performance evaluations are an opportune time to discuss any problems and an opportunity to right the ship, be preemptive with employees and show leadership. Employees can only go by information as reported by their supervisors. It is baffling that managers are so inept that they fail at simple business principles. What’s even more perplexing is the fact that this terminated employee was asked repeatedly to work overtime. Sometimes they were the only employee who volunteered and showed up and the overtime work was always unsupervised. Neither the department manager nor the department lead were present during these days. Furthermore, this employee had three new employees in their department which required extensive training and, therefore, an ample amount of time was taken away from the employee’s work. If this manager was so concerned about their employee’s performance or with the productivity of their department, why was the manager not showing up? If a superior is really concerned, they would monitor and supervise; they would not allow a “problematic” employee to work unsupervised or to train co-workers. If a manager is not showing up they evidently do not care. They will say they do and espouse the merit of hard work, but actions are the proof of someone’s true mentality. Criticizing someone’s work does not hold any value if you are absent. I.e., you cannot have a voice if you are not present. Adding insult to injury is the fact that valuable employees -- those that have gone beyond the call of duty -- can work for this company for years and never receive a promotion. This is very disconcerting as other employees with less experience and fewer skills receive promotions after only one year of employment. It’s clear that the reasons boil down to personal feelings rather than ethical business practices and data; the method, like with so many other aspects at this company, is visceral rather than intellectual. Cohesiveness and unity are important variables at any organization, however, managers at this company that conduct themselves based on emotion fail to realize the adverse consequences as it only serves to foster an environment of poor morale and trust. The same unethical department manager once informed an employee during a meeting that, “Apparently the CEO doesn’t like you very much.” When the employee asked why, the manager said, “It must have something to do with what happen before my employment.” So, the manager gave a “non-answer” and did not think it was necessary to inquire as to why the CEO felt this way. Also, the statement is utterly ambiguous -- is the dislike due to a performance related issue or is it personal? Ambiguity holds no value in a business organization. Likewise, a personal dislike, not performance related, of an employee, even if true, is completely worthless in a business setting. Saying that a CEO does not like an employee is also hollow if no reasons can be given. If a manager cannot explain why or cannot present evidence, why even say anything? Any good manager confronted with a rumor would investigate and offer procedures to improve performance, conduct, relationships, etc. If none of these steps are taken, then it is apparent the manager has no concern regarding their department’s well-being. This is another example of the lackadaisical and unprofessional approach to business. The above examples give insight to the lack of compassion and callous indifference of these managers. Their mindset is to blame others, especially subordinates, and not take any responsibility themselves. Managers say they want change, but they are not willing, unlike some employees, to sacrifice and work hard. The role of any manager is to be proactive and have a vested interest in their employees, identify problems, and then inculcate a methodical approach to efficient problem solving. For example, a manager should tell a problematic employee, “I have pinpointed these issues with your work. These variables need to be adjusted in order to ensure maximum performance.” If the employee does not modify their actions, then warnings should be issued and retraining given. If improvement is not shown at this stage, then, and only then, should termination be considered. Taking this route does require more effort by managers, but the payoff will eclipse the input of labor. Firing employees on a whim, on the other hand, is indolent and a formula for financial and moral deficits. Leads are another area of concern. Certain leads at this company fail in their duties to train and instruct. They leave the task up to subordinates and when any sort of issues arise, they indict these employees as the reason for said issues. Like managers, they too have a poor work ethic as they are unwilling to work overtime. Leads and managers are salaried employees so working overtime would not result in an expenditure for the company. In fact, leads have a supervisory responsibility to be present. To them, putting in the extra effort needed to improve operations and taking time out of their weekend is out of the question. But what isn’t out of the question is neglecting and not supporting department employees, wasting hours of company time each day web browsing, and being complete ne’er-do-wells. Additionally, leads have a petty habit of betraying employees to department managers by informing them of trivial matters. Managers do not need to be constantly bogged down with inconsequential concerns. By operating in this way, leads demonstrate their severe lack of professionalism and lack of commitment in furthering employee growth and development. Leads need to learn to handle these situations on their own, discuss the issue with the employee first, and then involve their department manager if the problem is not corrected. Furthermore, these same leads do not have a problem with remaining silent when one of their employees is being unjustly terminated by a manager. These leads are so cowardly and ethically bereft that they remain mute while typically entry level employees are irrationally and coldheartedly fired. Moreover, managers need to hold themselves accountable for hiring these leads. Managers must hire competent and professional people for these positions otherwise output and quality deteriorates considerably. Lastly, leads, like managers, hold themselves to a different standard than their employees. They extol the righteousness of personal accountability, yet dismiss and make unsatisfactory excuses for their own mistakes. Numerous errors at this company originate from managers and leads and then trickle down to their departments. Employees are being accused of these wrongdoings and inquiries into supervisory transgressions by employees are being rejected. Managers and leads must abandon their hypocritical ethos and accept an integrity-based code of ethics. A commitment to this code starts by them not thinking only in terms of how they are affected by things and by them not placing their own personal feelings in front of honor. How much culpability does the CEO deserve with regard to the previously mentioned appalling circumstances? Is the CEO aware of the manner in which business is being conducted and how the employees are being treated? And, if not, why is the CEO not aware of these conditions? Either way, this lack of involvement shows the CEO’s lack of loyalty and demonstrates that employees are not the most valuable asset. The responsibility of any good CEO is to be on top of the inner workings of an organization. Involve yourself, don’t just let things happen around you. If the CEO is remaining passive, then the CEO is implicitly condoning immoral and unethical behavior. An atmosphere of negligence is superseding an “atmosphere of harmony.” This company cannot continue to operate in this fashion as it is terribly destructive. The harmful effects are current employees not reaching their full potential, becoming disillusioned, and churning out lackluster performances day-in and day-out. Former employees will be vocal about their unfair experiences and disrespectful treatment. This criticism from dissatisfied employees will have serious consequences within the industry as reputational damage is the outcome. This is one more key management strategy variable that this company does not consider due to incompetence and narcissistic thinking. This company fails to understand how much suffering is being caused and how detrimental their actions are to the welfare of these terminated employees. Many employees at this company live paycheck to paycheck and are severely impacted by the loss of employment. This can be a short-term problem for some, as they lose a steady source of income and insurance benefits while seeking new employment. But the deleterious effects go much deeper. The terminated employee endures a long-term problem as they end up with a “scarlet letter” on their work history which can have a lasting impact on their professional career. The barrier to entry in obtaining employment becomes extremely difficult as potential employers may not consider an applicant if their work history includes termination. No real growth in business or significant goals will ever be attained with this corrupt management modus operandi. The competitive edge in the industry will be nonexistent and no substantial contracts will ever be secured. The result is a company that will languish in a sea of mediocrity. Moreover, what needs to be considered is how these wanton beliefs will not be isolated to purely professional level concerns. Those who conduct themselves unethically in business will most likely fail in their personal lives and any important relationships will suffer tremendously. These individuals should ponder how they will not have a clear conscience and will forever carry a deep sense of guilt. The overwhelming sense of shame will lead to an albatross creating a slovenly mind which will stifle individual ambitions, dreams, visions, etc. Any employee at this company, especially the CEO, managers, or leads, should not treat this review as a negative. On the contrary, this document should be deemed exceptionally helpful and treated as a didactic instrument. This evaluation is not intended to impugn all leads and managers at this company as some are the antithesis to the aforementioned statements. But contemplating the information for those that have adopted the specified failed tenets will prove to be extremely helpful as the outcome will be career and personal advancement. The pure objective in writing this review is for the company to modify operations because people are being hurt by this weak and broken management philosophy. This document might anger some employees and/ or management, but the intention of this constructive yet pointed critique is to facilitate change. The change needed is for the CEO, managers, and leads to look inward, internalize, and challenge one’s self and to see employees as assets and not as expendables. The reward for accepting these virtues is a path to unmitigated success.