But that's MY job!

[Brighton Rock]

Since I was appointed Assistant Company Secretary, one of the tasks I have been given is to administer my company's grant-giving charitable foundation. 

This workstream was, in recent years, carried out as a stand-alone part-time job.  That post-holder has gone on to another part-time post within our organisation.  There was a hiatus of about six months between the end of her post and the beginning of mine, during which time the foundation was looked after by our Director of Finance and Administration (DF&A).

Our DF&A is leaving within the next three months and someone new is being recruited. Our company is taking this opportunity to have a look at the management structure within the context of its other restructuring plans.  So far, so good.

I attended a meeting today with other colleagues at which the restructuring plans were discussed.  One of my colleagues (our Facilities Co-ordinator) mentioned that the charitable foundation had originally been in her remit, i.e. before the part-time post was created.  Apparently, she never had the opportunity to carry out the duties associated with the foundation.  She says she asked about them, but was "fobbed off".  She did not address her concerns to HR or the CEO. 

The charitable foundation is an entity separate from our company.  If the company folded tomorrow, the foundation would continue.  So, I suppose it doesn't necessarily belong to any particular job, but its natural home is really within the CEO's office because, ultimately, she will be responsible for its good governance under Company and Charity legislation.

What puzzles me is why this is an issue right now for my colleague, and why didn't she raise concerns years ago.  I cannot see, on our "who does what" directory, any reference to our Facilities Co-ordinator having the foundation within her remit.  It is all rather strange. 

[gee4]

If the Facilities Co-ordinator carried out this role before you came along then perhaps you would not have known about it.

Perhaps if she was "fobbed off" as you say, she is a bit miffed about it and enjoyed the work and would like to get involved again.

You might want investigate as to whether or not this role did actually fall under her remit before you do anything more.

[Brighton Rock]

Thank you, Gee.  Most helpful.

I have found out that the charitable foundation was wholly within the remit of the DF&A - client management and financial reporting.  However, a few years ago the taking of minutes (only) was placed within the remit of the Facilities Co-ordinator.  The foundation work was then transferred to the part-timer, as I noted in my first post.  At no time did the Facilities Co-ordinator raise any concerns about this situation formally. 

My company is re-structuring and the administration of the foundation has been transferred to the company's group secretariat office.  This office is headed by the CEO and it is where my role sits, along with my assistant. 

All the secretariat were aware of my new role being established and the elements it would contain.   If they didn't understand it, then that is not the fault of management because everything was explained to them several times.

The question then remains: why is this an issue now?  Having spoken with the CEO and the DF&A this morning, the answer is that this is about money.  Part of the re-structuring of the company comprises evaluating jobs and salaries.  More territory = more money. 

I guess we all have to navigate through the sometimes-murky waters of office politics, but in my company there is a core group of people who do not wish for ANY change EVER to take place.  And no-one can manage, persuade, etc them out of this. 

It's all very wearing, but I have batted this particular ball where it belongs.  We'll have to see what happens next. 

[gee4]

BR that explains a lot.

Interesting how one individual can say by the "taking of minutes" this role came under her remit.  I knew there had to be more to it.

You are also probably right with regard to the evaluation of jobs and salaries.

Well done.  Hope you manage to get things sorted.

[raindance]

That's a grim story, Bright.  People can be very territorial and jealous.  It seems a time of profound change for your company.  It can't be easy working in that poisonous atmosphere, so be brave.  I hope you make good use of your professional networks to reinforce the positives in your life.  Take time to have some good quality rest and recreation.  And remember that you should never apologise for living and breathing. 

[peaches2160]

Have been down this road before when it comes to change and coworkers being territorial.  What they seem to forget is that with change comes discomfort and fear of the unknown.  However, it is also how we grow.  If one does not embrace it and take the attitude that change is good and open their mind to new ideas and perspectives, they will sit in the back and soon be out of date.  I learned to embrace it and go with it, deal with the pain and try my best to keep the emotions in check, don't cling to the old. 

This person may be looking for something they are remotely familiar with to hang on to instead of reaching to find something unfamiliar and uncomfortable.  Give it time.  This is always a part of managing change. 

[Brighton Rock]

Peaches,

Unfortunately, as I noted in my first post in this thread, this individual has  never participated in this workstream, so there is no "change" to be faced or managed.

She has also never pursued her lack of participation, eventhough she now alleges that she "always" wanted to, but was refused by her line manager.  As this individual is fairly robust in other avenues of communication, I don't buy that story.

In common with most companies, we have established channels through which to pursue any grievances or difficulties, so one just has to ask "Why?" and "Why now?"

Apparently, when someone else (the part-timer I mentioned) did the work, my colleague did not raise any objections.  It has only become important now. This is not a case of "I want to do this".  It is a case of "I want to do this work because I stand to lose ground in the re-structuring of the company and after six years in the company I have just woken up to that fact.  So I want it because it's on my job description even though I've been happy so far for other people to do the work." 

I think most of us here on DD, at least those with any seniority in their companies, would have been on the case straight away if we were not fulfilling our remits. 

[JessW]

BR, I think you have hit the nail on the head with your last comment.  If something is in someone's job description and they did not do it, they would deserve to be sacked, or at least brought up on it (verbally to start and then the rest!) 

[Brighton Rock]

Thank you, Jess. 

Unfortunately, this whole business has become worse in the past few days.  The matter concerning the charitable foundation has been cleared up (and I'm definitely in charge of it).   However, there are fundamental diffciulties in the F&A team that have come to light - leakage and misuse of privileged information about remuneration packages,  personnel information, general gossip, lack of service to colleagues and our business clients, staff questioning the integrity and probity of their director (without foundation).  It's a hideous and toxic mix. 

A number of us have been questioned about certain recent events. 

This is the difficulty, I suppose.  Our managers employ a "hands-off" management style which, on the whole, works very well.  Sadly, some people appear to have taken advantage of it and also acted unprofessionally. 

I'm just hoping that the management of our company is able to sort things out positively and without having to dismiss people.  I don't wish unemployment or dismissal on anyone.  It's an awful time to be out of work.

[JessW]

BR

I feel for you - I bet "Fire Fighter" is no more in your job description than it is in mine.

Just remember, we are here for moral support and KBO ('keep B@@ggering on!')

  Jess