I had lunch with an ex-colleague today and they were telling me a little about how things have changed under new management and leadership. Going from what was a note typical Finnish tech company style with low social hierarchy to a US style where a leader demands underlings bow down in reverence, is going to be quite a big change for many. Quite a few of the older folk have been through it before when Microsoft took over at Nokia, and they didn't like it then either.
The new CEO seems to be someone who is very demanding, almost a diva, which again, is going to raise some resistance - at least behind their back. Abd while most won't have to deal directly with them, it is likely that in the bear future the demand son those who do, will filter through the organisation and impact everyone, as it will affect the culture at the core.
I expect some volatility.
While my position was cut due to budgetary reasons, I expect that in the coming months there might be more personnel churn as some might feel it is no longer a place for them. Similarly, some of the roles have shifted from a service and support purview, to a more commercial perspective with quotas they hadn't had earlier, and this is a large shift. Many aren't suited to be quota-bearing, and will be not only out of their comfort zone, but out of their skillet completely.
It sets up an unfamiliar dynamic for many within the company, and it will be interesting to see how it proceeds at the personal level. At the business level, people don't really matter, and going into what looks likely to be a stronger economy for this kind of business, the company will likely do well, as will those who can absorb the change, pivot to new ways of working, and hit their numbers.
For those that can't, unemployment in Finland is sitting at around nine percent and a lot of those are highly educated, so there is a line of people ready and waiting. And with years of economic pain, stagnant salaries, forced layoffs and growing cost of living expenses, a job of any kind is better than no job at all. But, this comes with the caveat that a job with uncompassionate leadership, is going to be stressful.
Overall, Finland is a pretty good place to work in terms of conditions, but the salaries have a lot to be desired. This used to be offset more by social services, schooling and healthcare, but they are all being pared back on cost saving measures, because the economy is no longer balanced for a circular system between education, labour, salary, tax and service, and is increasingly being overrun by corporations and investment companies making increasing profits.
Reflecting on the conversation today, I don't know if I am better off not at the company any longer, or if the conditions would be more suited to me and I could thrive there. I think it is not a simple yes or no answer as there are many variables and pros and cons, but I feel it would have been interesting to experience it directly, rather than vicariously through second-hand stories.
I am pretty sure though that had I been there when this change was happening, I would have seen it all as negative, because I would see that "my" job is changing and I a "forced" to change. Even though I know that this wouldn't be the case, because it is a role I am hired to fill, not mine. And while the changing role would force me to change, there is no obligation to stay. However, everyone complains about even small changes to "their" job, even though of someone new was starting just after the change, they would accept it as the job.
There is a difference in our mindset when we opt into a set of conditions, or are forced I to it but changing circumstances. If I were to go back, all the latest changes would be acceptable to me, because o am choosing to go into them. Would I go back though? I don't know if they would have ne back, but I do like many of the people I worked with daily, and that has value on top of a salary.
People change.
And personnel change.
Have I changed enough, or not enough?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using INLEO
Oooooof, that sounds like a very challenging labor market. No wonder people are staying loyal in jobs that no longer serve them as well as when they were younger.
This is exactly how I felt about getting back into the classroom as a teacher. I would not just teach anywhere, but as a math teacher I was able to be more selective with which schools I interviewed at. I feel fortunate that I was able to avoid teaching in public school and instead choose a charter school with better culture and a higher salary. I don't have much faith in public pensions 30 years from now and I don't want to be tied down to working in a single district to be eligible for a 20+ year pension.
What! So you have to work in the same area for a full pension? It doesn't accrue wherever you are?
It is challenging here at the moment. But maybe in a few months it will be better. Here's hoping.
Most teaching jobs are run by the Dept of Education for the respective city and the pensions are paid out by the city. So years accrued in one city do not transfer over to another city unless there is a mechanic for that city to be able to "buy" those years of service based on what you earned there. It is a mess for sure. By isolating the pensions to cities, rather than states or countries, people are tied to those jobs. It is quite unfortunate.
If you have a state job or a federal job, then you would receive a pension from that state or country instead. Such a mess!
That's too bad that things are going that way for the company. I worked for a company long ago where something like that happened. The leadership style was always the same, but they shifted their focus from what they were good at to something they thought would make them more money. For a while it did, but the industry changed and before long they were obliterated.
This is what I am hoping doesn't happen. What they are good at, they really are good at and I think that in time it will make them far more money if they develop it with the current market in mind.
Fingers crossed I guess.
Those types of change are happening the world over, it seems. Although I am now retired, the last couple of positions I held had moved from personal service to quota driven 'additives'. I despised that job after the change and made haste to exit that workforce. I imagine though, that if I were to return today, those changes would be 'just part of the job'.
People resist change and progress isn't always for the better. Maybe it's all in perspective.
I have never carried a personal quota, but have for a team quota. Might be interesting, but not sure if I am interested in chasing like that at the moment.
It is rarely better to begin with, but change is also how we can make things better as they evolve. :)
You could try to get back in if the post open positions due to people leaving. We also recently had a leadership change. One day our CIO was a media darling and receiving all kinds of rewards on top of a very successful project launches and flawless performance and then the next day she is gone with only an email thanking her for her service.
She never even got a chance to send us a goodbye email... And of course we have a complete re-org and a temporary CIO with a complete management re-shuffle... This just happened about a month ago.
I hate it when there are changes in leadership like that, with no explanation. It does show how expendable people are though, doesn't it?
I have reached out to a few ex-colleagues in leadership to keep an eye out for anything suitable. But, not sure how it will go :)
Yep, it does show how expendable people are. The funny part is that this organization is supposedly all about the people in its mission statement and True North posters LOL.
Its the money that acts as fuel in such business machinery and the high command will do anything in their power to stop the bleed and the bleed being the salary paid to the staff. They started demanding multirole candidates nowadays here.
This is applicable to whole of the world.
multirole positions? Like programmer/cleaner? :D
Sssshhh !! Don't give them ideas man. 😆
They are already forcing us to do work that doesn't fall into our job descriptions.
must adapt and overcome.. 😉😎🤙
In some things, it is impossible. I can't make myself smarter :)
Obviously, a lot will change with the new CEO. I think you can have a better working environment with the new CEO. But I think you don't want to work in a salaried job anymore.
At the moment, I don't want to work at all! But really, I am going to have to at some point, because I still have financial obligations and a future to face.
Regarding the 9% unemployment, do people look for jobs in other parts of the EU? Or is that an option that's there "in theory", but in practice, language barriers etc make it too difficult?
It happens relatively regularly, but I am not EU. I am Australian, so it isn't quite as simple for me.
My experience with those kind of takeovers is this : "Get the hell out of there before it's too late." It starts with layoffs, and then more layoffs, and then if you're part of the best people left, you need to work three times as hard to compensate for the layoffs. And they keep motivating you that it's for the best. Thanks, but no thanks.
That is often how it goes, though it is a bit different in Finland due to the labour laws. However, I think that they will move some of the roles overseas anyway.
Is that what Europeans think US style workplaces are? Maybe in the 70s and before, but it hasn't been that way for a while. I've worked in the US my entire work life and never had to bow down to anybody in reverence.
Considering its population, I think the unemployment rate seems to be high as to Finland.
That is very huge challenge to face on