Dear Shwetavi,
Going by the inputs you've provided, I could only express some thoughts here, whether they may be right or wrong, totally or half here and there.
First of all, you should realize yourself what your role is in the firm. I presume the projects are part of "Procurement, Operation/Execution, sales, and Customer Accounts." I think these are directly under the Tech head or the CEOs themselves. Therefore, you have hardly anything to give directions to the team members in the project execution. It appears from your opinions that what the team members say to you in confidence is what they might feel, probably right or wrong. However, the CEOs should be aware of what they are doing and how their instructions impact the projects at hand with the project team. You or anybody cannot put on the shoes of the CEOs. They know their priorities, and it is their company, and whatever the bottom line is going to be, it will reflect their own deeds. So, it is needless for you to get offended by what the CEOs do.
Secondly, CEOs, in their best judgments, prioritize for reasons not known to you and the team. It is always there in any business to switch/deviate to other tasks for some reasons depending on circumstances. I don't deny that for these deviations, the team could have finished Project A, but you forget that it is the CEOs who are going to be answerable for the slippages, not the HR. In such a small firm, it is quite normal to deviate like this. There was no other option; where was Team B to execute Project Z? Do you want the CEO to recruit an exclusive Team B? The order book position didn't justify a new Team B. Probably the CEOs achieved optimum utilization of Team Project A. In fact, think of it this way: while executing Project A, you should take pride that you executed Project Z as well, which was not there originally. This means you did two projects at a time, isn't it? This is positive thinking from your example.
Thirdly, it is nearly impossible to give instructions in one go at the beginning itself. It is nothing wrong to add instructions in the course of execution or modify the given instructions. Of course, the team has to recommence the project all over again, a fact the CEOs are definitely aware of. The team naturally should get frustrated. You have to live with it. Don't think this sort of thing happens only in your firm. It's happening, and it will happen everywhere.
Then, how did you think it is 'dictatorship'? Yes, it is dictatorship; what else could it be? There are only two CEOs. Where does democratic functionality come from? After all, it's their firm; they have every right to allow the firm to function according to their whims and fancies. Of course, the style and tenor will vary from person to person; you have to live with it whether you like it or not.
So, you people are unnecessarily getting worked up and worried for nothing. It's not a fairy tale but a way of life you have to live with, whether you like it or not. The only thing you people can do is quit and join another big company, only to let yourselves lament; then, your remarks would be like this: "See this team leader, he/she behaves as if it is their own company. If it were his/her own firm, how would he/she have behaved, God only knows." Am I not sounding realistic or pragmatic, friend?
Take things in their proper perspective and move ahead. All the best.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1274Going by the inputs you've provided, I could only express some thoughts here, whether they may be right or wrong, totally or half here and there.
First of all, you should realize yourself what your role is in the firm. I presume the projects are part of "Procurement, Operation/Execution, sales, and Customer Accounts." I think these are directly under the Tech head or the CEOs themselves. Therefore, you have hardly anything to give directions to the team members in the project execution. It appears from your opinions that what the team members say to you in confidence is what they might feel, probably right or wrong. However, the CEOs should be aware of what they are doing and how their instructions impact the projects at hand with the project team. You or anybody cannot put on the shoes of the CEOs. They know their priorities, and it is their company, and whatever the bottom line is going to be, it will reflect their own deeds. So, it is needless for you to get offended by what the CEOs do.
Secondly, CEOs, in their best judgments, prioritize for reasons not known to you and the team. It is always there in any business to switch/deviate to other tasks for some reasons depending on circumstances. I don't deny that for these deviations, the team could have finished Project A, but you forget that it is the CEOs who are going to be answerable for the slippages, not the HR. In such a small firm, it is quite normal to deviate like this. There was no other option; where was Team B to execute Project Z? Do you want the CEO to recruit an exclusive Team B? The order book position didn't justify a new Team B. Probably the CEOs achieved optimum utilization of Team Project A. In fact, think of it this way: while executing Project A, you should take pride that you executed Project Z as well, which was not there originally. This means you did two projects at a time, isn't it? This is positive thinking from your example.
Thirdly, it is nearly impossible to give instructions in one go at the beginning itself. It is nothing wrong to add instructions in the course of execution or modify the given instructions. Of course, the team has to recommence the project all over again, a fact the CEOs are definitely aware of. The team naturally should get frustrated. You have to live with it. Don't think this sort of thing happens only in your firm. It's happening, and it will happen everywhere.
Then, how did you think it is 'dictatorship'? Yes, it is dictatorship; what else could it be? There are only two CEOs. Where does democratic functionality come from? After all, it's their firm; they have every right to allow the firm to function according to their whims and fancies. Of course, the style and tenor will vary from person to person; you have to live with it whether you like it or not.
So, you people are unnecessarily getting worked up and worried for nothing. It's not a fairy tale but a way of life you have to live with, whether you like it or not. The only thing you people can do is quit and join another big company, only to let yourselves lament; then, your remarks would be like this: "See this team leader, he/she behaves as if it is their own company. If it were his/her own firm, how would he/she have behaved, God only knows." Am I not sounding realistic or pragmatic, friend?
Take things in their proper perspective and move ahead. All the best.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Shwetavi Ji,
Good Afternoon.
There are two paths or solutions for any kind of problem: one is in a positive way, and the other is in a negative way.
THE FIRST ONE: Positive Way
You are mentioning that there are two CEOs and they are interfering with the employees who are working on different projects or the same project.
As you know, all the employees report to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). When the CEO instructs urgent tasks, it is the employees' duty to complete the assigned work, regardless of whether it is related to a new project or the ongoing one.
You are correct that employees are fulfilling the job as per the client's requirements. Simultaneously, if the client requests modifications, they typically communicate directly with the CEO in smaller companies like yours. Consequently, the CEO conveys the required changes to the employees.
If the CEO assigns unrelated tasks to employees engaged in other projects, the employees can openly discuss the potential impact on project timelines. Subsequently, the CEO may reconsider the assignment and delegate it to someone else. However, if the CEO insists, employees can prioritize and complete the new task.
Ultimately, in case of any issues, the CEO will address them, not solely the employees, provided they follow the CEO's instructions.
This is the positive approach.
SECOND ONE: Negative Way
When the CEO presents a new task, employees can express their ongoing project commitments and inability to undertake additional work, whether new or modifications to existing projects. This refusal may affect not only the CEO but also the employees. Those declining the assignment may risk their standing with the CEO.
Is this necessary?
Therefore, employees in small companies should heed their CEO's directives, which benefits both parties.
Regards,
Ramani
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Good Afternoon.
There are two paths or solutions for any kind of problem: one is in a positive way, and the other is in a negative way.
THE FIRST ONE: Positive Way
You are mentioning that there are two CEOs and they are interfering with the employees who are working on different projects or the same project.
As you know, all the employees report to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). When the CEO instructs urgent tasks, it is the employees' duty to complete the assigned work, regardless of whether it is related to a new project or the ongoing one.
You are correct that employees are fulfilling the job as per the client's requirements. Simultaneously, if the client requests modifications, they typically communicate directly with the CEO in smaller companies like yours. Consequently, the CEO conveys the required changes to the employees.
If the CEO assigns unrelated tasks to employees engaged in other projects, the employees can openly discuss the potential impact on project timelines. Subsequently, the CEO may reconsider the assignment and delegate it to someone else. However, if the CEO insists, employees can prioritize and complete the new task.
Ultimately, in case of any issues, the CEO will address them, not solely the employees, provided they follow the CEO's instructions.
This is the positive approach.
SECOND ONE: Negative Way
When the CEO presents a new task, employees can express their ongoing project commitments and inability to undertake additional work, whether new or modifications to existing projects. This refusal may affect not only the CEO but also the employees. Those declining the assignment may risk their standing with the CEO.
Is this necessary?
Therefore, employees in small companies should heed their CEO's directives, which benefits both parties.
Regards,
Ramani
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.