Thinking about resigning

[Batya33]

I agree with you actually but I've also worked at less than stellar companies so I'm not exactly naive when it comes to working for others. It's important to have a good attitude but when an environment is out of your (hypothetical 'your') hands, it's best to acknowledge it, accept it and work towards a better future. Continuing to hit your (again, hypothetical) head against a brick wall or in a situation that is difficult to change is not going to help anyone. His agitation alone is not healthy to the company or to himself. Not everyone is resilient enough or humble enough to backtrack on their wrongs and not everyone in the company will be willing to support him. Face it head on and prepare for the future in ways that are calculated for better returns.

 

My suggestion is to clarify the job description issue where clarification was lacking in the first place. If he has a a specific skill set and is hired for a specific purpose, both parties (employer and candidate/employee) should be aware. I'm not suggesting in any way rigidity or being difficult to work with but there should be more clarity at the start between both parties. The rest is really up to the person on whether he/she wants to grow. Most leaders or individuals in managerial positions take on a lot more than what their JDs list. It just comes with the territory. Even if he is his own boss his skills in learning to clarify job descriptions and expectations are useful when he's managing his own employees.

 

I agree to a minor extent. I would not take this approach on an interview. I would ask broad questions and only if he could not get the information from the description or the website/inside info. Show a can do/team player attitude because getting into the weeds too much on an interview is inconsistent with a team player attitude. This time around when I did my job search I had to be very specific about timing and telework because of child care responsibilities (which they were aware of and the part time program I interviewed for was particularly suited to moms like me)- it would have been a waste of their time if in reality they needed me in the office 5 days a week which I likely could not make happen.

 

If there is something the interviewee cannot do - meaning just lacks the skills (like I couldn't drive as part of my work responsibilities) or needs a particular accommodation that should be stated at the outset. If I had to choose between two candidates where one asked for specific clarification of job duties (especially if I got even an inkling of "I don't want to do ___ that is beneath me") and the other asked a broad based question and then focused on how she could contribute to the company it would be a no brainer who I'd choose.

[RayofLighten]

I also have to add I'm the only probationaty employee who didn't get a salary increase. That's when I started to get upset and realized all of them have a systematic job description while mine didn't that's why I performed poorly, because he keeps giving me new tasks that aren't on my job offer and I'm unfamiliar with.

 

There is always a reason. Ask for feedback.

[Rose Mosse]

I agree to a minor extent. I would not take this approach on an interview. I would ask broad questions and only if he could not get the information from the description or the website/inside info. Show a can do/team player attitude because getting into the weeds too much on an interview is inconsistent with a team player attitude. This time around when I did my job search I had to be very specific about timing and telework because of child care responsibilities (which they were aware of and the part time program I interviewed for was particularly suited to moms like me)- it would have been a waste of their time if in reality they needed me in the office 5 days a week which I likely could not make happen.

 

If there is something the interviewee cannot do - meaning just lacks the skills (like I couldn't drive as part of my work responsibilities) or needs a particular accommodation that should be stated at the outset. If I had to choose between two candidates where one asked for specific clarification of job duties (especially if I got even an inkling of "I don't want to do ___ that is beneath me") and the other asked a broad based question and then focused on how she could contribute to the company it would be a no brainer who I'd choose.

 

Good points. And I'd have the same approach as you. I did mention however that I'm not promoting rigidity. I just think everyone should be on the same page. You're still commenting on the rigidity aspect with your examples which we're both agreeing is not conducive to a team player attitude/atmosphere.

[Batya33]

Good points. And I'd have the same approach as you. I did mention however that I'm not promoting rigidity. I just think everyone should be on the same page. You're still commenting on the rigidity aspect with your examples which we're both agreeing is not conducive to a team player attitude/atmosphere.

 

Yes. I would find your approach to an interview too rigid and the interviewee getting in his own way. I think being on the same page in that situation means that the interviewee should know what the company does, his job description, and if needed his general working hours and most of all how he can be an asset to and contribute to the company in whatever way possible. He has to sell himself particularly in this job market. Asking to be "on the same page" with respect to what would be outside his job description -again, especially if there was even a whiff of "I want to make sure I won't be doing anything beneath my stature" - to me should not be the priority for someone who needs a job that is relevant to his career or future goals.

[Rose Mosse]

Yes. I would find your approach to an interview too rigid and the interviewee getting in his own way. I think being on the same page in that situation means that the interviewee should know what the company does, his job description, and if needed his general working hours and most of all how he can be an asset to and contribute to the company in whatever way possible. He has to sell himself particularly in this job market. Asking to be "on the same page" with respect to what would be outside his job description -again, especially if there was even a whiff of "I want to make sure I won't be doing anything beneath my stature" - to me should not be the priority for someone who needs a job that is relevant to his career or future goals.

 

I understand where you're coming from but I think you're still stuck in the negative mindset or interpretation of what I'm trying to convey. I'm in no way suggesting that anyone behave like parts of their job are beneath them. I already addressed this in my first post about how the OP's boss may have sensed some push back. It's common knowledge that acting like a snob is not going to get anyone anywhere. I also think it's a bit naive to believe that a company will behave in an employee's best interests. I'm only suggesting that he cover his bases and take care of his best interests also. There's a balance.

[Batya33]

I understand where you're coming from but I think you're still stuck in the negative mindset or interpretation of what I'm trying to convey. I'm in no way suggesting that anyone behave like parts of their job are beneath them. I already addressed this in my first post about how the OP's boss may have sensed some push back. It's common knowledge that acting like a snob is not going to get anyone anywhere. I also think it's a bit naive to believe that a company will behave in an employee's best interests. I'm only suggesting that he cover his bases and take care of his best interests also. There's a balance.

 

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I'm not stuck. You seem to be stuck on this topic and on being "right". I don't need to be right so I'll respectfully bow out. And of course I don't expect an employer to behave in an employee's "best interests" -they're not parents - not even sure what that means? I expect an employer to act within whatever law applies and to pay the employee for his work whatever was agreed to. I do expect someone who wants a job to have the attitude of impressing the potential employer, being honest about skill set and learning curve situations, being ready and willing and enthusiastic about working with the company and contributing to the bottom line, and on finding the right fit mostly because of all of those goals. I am not a fan of any kind of entitlement attitude or giving even the slightest impression of an entitlement attitude especially on an interview. Of course there's a balance -that we agree on, easy peasy.

 

I agree with Dancing Fool's approach. To the extent we disagree, let's agree to disagree- obviously your approach has worked for you and I am taking into account the OP's past posts too. I think part of why he is not getting a raise is not enough of a teamwork attitude no matter how adept he thinks he is at hiding his resentment for doing tasks he believes are outside his job description.

[Rose Mosse]

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I'm not stuck. You seem to be stuck on this topic and on being "right". I don't need to be right so I'll respectfully bow out. And of course I don't expect an employer to behave in an employee's "best interests" -they're not parents - not even sure what that means? I expect an employer to act within whatever law applies and to pay the employee for his work whatever was agreed to. I do expect someone who wants a job to have the attitude of impressing the potential employer, being honest about skill set and learning curve situations, being ready and willing and enthusiastic about working with the company and contributing to the bottom line, and on finding the right fit mostly because of all of those goals. I am not a fan of any kind of entitlement attitude or giving even the slightest impression of an entitlement attitude especially on an interview. Of course there's a balance -that we agree on, easy peasy.

 

I agree with Dancing Fool's approach. To the extent we disagree, let's agree to disagree- obviously your approach has worked for you and I am taking into account the OP's past posts too. I think part of why he is not getting a raise is not enough of a teamwork attitude no matter how adept he thinks he is at hiding his resentment for doing tasks he believes are outside his job description.

 

Actually I've agreed on all your points and you have in mine (you just have trouble admitting it fully?). I'm not sure where you're picking up that we are different in the way we have discussed attitude when it comes to an employee or potential employee. I don't have to be right at all - I've already agreed with you because most of what you've said is reasonable. I'm just surprised at your need to differ.

 

Where I will add(emphasis on ADDING) to the discussion is your expectation of an employer to act within the law and to pay wages for time worked (also within the law). I canvassed briefly the unfortunate situation where an employer may have been designing their hiring scheme based on the fact that one or two or some employees will eventually be culled (a certain percentage) after probationary periods whether that employee is good or not. That situation is out of his hands. And it brings me back to clarifying in the first place his job description which was lacking. I'm paying attention to what the OP is saying his situation is. I really don't think this company is worth sticking it out for given the scenario and the facts that the OP mentioned. I also think he has some growing to do which is fine. Don't we all!

[Batya33]

Actually I've agreed on all your points and you have in mine (you just have trouble admitting it fully?). I'm not sure where you're picking up that we are different in the way we have discussed attitude when it comes to an employee or potential employee. I don't have to be right at all - I've already agreed with you because most of what you've said is reasonable. I'm just surprised at your need to differ.

 

Where I will add(emphasis on ADDING) to the discussion is your expectation of an employer to act within the law and to pay wages for time worked (also within the law). I canvassed briefly the unfortunate situation where an employer may have been designing their hiring scheme based on the fact that one or two or some employees will eventually be culled (a certain percentage) after probationary periods whether that employee is good or not. That situation is out of his hands. And it brings me back to clarifying in the first place his job description which was lacking. I'm paying attention to what the OP is saying his situation is. I really don't think this company is worth sticking it out for given the scenario and the facts that the OP mentioned. I also think he has some growing to do which is fine. Don't we all!

 

Thanks for sharing! As I wrote, agree to disagree so I simply skimmed. My adding more won't be helpful or relevant to the OP.

[indea08]

Qwerty, it’s your life and your job. If you’re not happy, you’re welcome to leave, especially if you don’t NEED the income.

 

Me personally, I could not and would not work for a boss who doesn’t want to address me directly and chooses to to act through HR. I expect ongoing conversation about my progress, my goals, and my future. Otherwise, why would I be motivated to work harder? Why would I invest myself into a company that doesn’t invest in me as well?

 

If you’re looking for a job with potential for advancement and professional growth, I would say this is not the boss that’s going to get you there.

 

And I actually disagree with all of the posts about appearing as if you’re willing to do whatever at your interviews. An interview is your chance to interview the employer just as much as it’s a chance for them to interview you. If there are certain things you’re looking for and certain things you’re not interested in, make that known. Otherwise you’ll be stuck with a job you hate and you’ll be miserable, as you are now. Being a team player is one thing, being a doormat or a kissass is another.

 

Just as the company can replace you, you can easily leave and find a new company, so find the right match for you.

[Rose Mosse]

An interview is your chance to interview the employer just as much as it’s a chance for them to interview you. If there are certain things you’re looking for and certain things you’re not interested in, make that known. Otherwise you’ll be stuck with a job you hate and you’ll be miserable, as you are now. Being a team player is one thing, being a doormat or a kissass is another.

 

Just as the company can replace you, you can easily leave and find a new company, so find the right match for you.

 

Bingo.

Hit the nail on the head.

[Batya33]

Qwerty, it’s your life and your job. If you’re not happy, you’re welcome to leave, especially if you don’t NEED the income.

 

Me personally, I could not and would not work for a boss who doesn’t want to address me directly and chooses to to act through HR. I expect ongoing conversation about my progress, my goals, and my future. Otherwise, why would I be motivated to work harder? Why would I invest myself into a company that doesn’t invest in me as well?

 

If you’re looking for a job with potential for advancement and professional growth, I would say this is not the boss that’s going to get you there.

 

And I actually disagree with all of the posts about appearing as if you’re willing to do whatever at your interviews. An interview is your chance to interview the employer just as much as it’s a chance for them to interview you. If there are certain things you’re looking for and certain things you’re not interested in, make that known. Otherwise you’ll be stuck with a job you hate and you’ll be miserable, as you are now. Being a team player is one thing, being a doormat or a kissass is another.

 

Just as the company can replace you, you can easily leave and find a new company, so find the right match for you.

 

Yes, I agree! OP -don't be a doormat and be a team player -there's a happy balance. In my experience in the job market it's a tricky balance at times and I would balance it in favor of impressing the interviewer and having a short list of dealbreakers in mind -as short as possible (like in dating, actually). No need to be stuck with a job you hate and also no need to come across as being too particular about what you will and will not do. It's all about prep in advance -come up with 3-5 questions that cannot be answered on the website or through a google search to ask the interviewer. One question I used to ask was "how would you describe the working environment?" -the answer to that should give you clues as to fit. And certainly express what you're interested in -in a positive way and with the spin of "I want to contribute to and be an asset to this company so I am sharing my interests to show what I can bring to the table" - rather than "I am interested in ___ and want to know how the company is going to support my interest in ____" . Sometimes how you spin it is crucial.

 

Certainly if a person wants to be very picky and can risk not getting a job they would be happy at but not "over the moon" about then that will inform how they behave on an interview. In my life I've always been on the hungrier side to get the offer based on my lifestyle, circumstances, and the job market. So, not kiss ass/doormat but certainly not acting as if I'm entitled to be mentored/taught etc. I've always found mentors and I learned also how to be a valuable "mentee" so that the relationship was not one sided. The OP seems to lean more towards entitlement from how I've read things and in my opinion he might want to veer away from that attitude some given his needs and his goals. I might give different input to someone else -who could afford to be even pickier, who had more years experience, who wasn't looking to start his own business someday and make valuable connections, etc. I don't think it's easy to find a new company and I don't think job hopping looks good on a resume, with rare exception.

 

I think these different approaches are valuable and the differences make the world go round. Also OP I love the site askamanager.com -it's not narrowly focused on what the title suggests -some really interesting articles/resources. Take a look if you like and good luck!

[Cherylyn]

Retain your job because experience and a steady paycheck are extremely important. Don't jump ship until you have another job secured otherwise you'll be stuck in unemployment for a long time. Be shrewd and prudent.

[figureitout23]

Q -

 

You’ve made multiple posts about your career and there was another one most recently about you quitting your previous job.

 

Eventually you are as others pointed out going to have to tell your ego to stand down.

 

If you hate your job, doing it as a means to an end or feel it’s annoying it’s going to show, it just is, if when people give you pointers for room for improvement and you get offended and take it personally and well kinda make yourself out to be a wounded bird that impression sticks. The overly sensitive employee doesn’t get very far.

 

I would be peeved if everyone but me got a raise though, I’m just being honest I would, BUT I wouldn’t just jump to another job again, slow down, concentrate on what you’re doing and what job fits your personality and strengths, then apply.

 

Good luck!

[abitbroken]

QUOTE=boltnrun;7109262]It sounds like you believe you were guaranteed a raise after six months but that's apparently not the case. Who told you that you were guaranteed a raise?

 

Also, how do you know who got raises and how much they were? That shouldn't be discussed. And I hope you haven't discussed your disappointment at not getting a raise with any of your coworkers.

 

Your boss is doing you a favor perhaps. You technically have lasted the length of the probationary period but you are not quite up to snuff in your performance, so he wants to give you more time to prove yourself. If i recall there are a few mistakes you made, like opening your boss' or someone else's personal mail because you didn't understand you shouldn't. He would have fired you on the spot if he didn't see at least a little potential. So take this opportunity to improve and pass your probation period

[abitbroken]

Its better to interview for other jobs WHILE you are in this job and state the position is not the right one for your career growth then to be fired, take an interview and say "it didn't work out"

[pam4him]

It can hurt when those around us seem to excel or succeed faster than us. Review the company policies to see if everything is covered. IE. is the raise set or is it based on the approval of the supervisor. Providing a job description does not seem unreasonable and should be readily available. If you feel you are not making headway, consider contacting the local unemployment office for additional advice. As for resigning, it's a good idea to review finances on hand to determine if you need to stay while looking for other employment or resign and use that time to job hunt. Good luck, whichever way you go. Prayers for wisdom and peace about your decision.