Employee & Manager's Roles
@penrockerchic (1903)
Philippines
September 2, 2012 7:58pm CST
I just want to share a situation I am in as an employee. Frankly, I'm a bit confused, even after almost 5 years of working in the same company, how the chain of commands really work. From what I know, most companies have this chain of command and in whatever topic, problem, rule implementation is to be relayed, it follows this chain.
What I'm trying to say is that the managers and supervisors have huge responsibilities when it comes to their teams or subordinate pertaining to their work. If the employee made a mistake, it is the responsibility of the manager or supervisor to reprimand the employee. If something went wrong, for example, in any transaction or production, the manager is usually the one to blame if he approved something without checking. But, from where I stand, it seems that this managerial responsibility is not exercised. Our manager and supervisor can't seem to defend the employees when they have meetings with the CEO/President and they neglect to double check our projects even if we asked them to.
Also, the CEO DIRECTLY reprimands us through emails addressed to us since he lives some place else. But, isn't it the job of the manager to be the mediator and shock absorber of such things? Aren't they paid higher to be the mediator and to bear that responsibility? If so, then why does it seem like we report or answer directly to our President? If this is the case, then I really think everyone should have the same pay, what with all the pressure that we get directly from the president. I really think it's unfair.
What do you think Mylotters?
1 person likes this
6 responses
@julyteen (13252)
• Davao, Philippines
4 Sep 12
It seems you are working in a wrong company, I mean a management not following the standard operating procedure.
I work in one of the 5 star hotel in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and we always follow the chain of command. I am a supervisor so I have big responsibilities in the hotel operation.
Many times I leave the office late because of problems did by my staff and I need to solve before my manager knew it.
I work in one of the 5 star hotel in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and we always follow the chain of command. I am a supervisor so I have big responsibilities in the hotel operation.
Many times I leave the office late because of problems did by my staff and I need to solve before my manager knew it.@penrockerchic (1903)
• Philippines
5 Sep 12
You're a good supervisor. You know your responsibilities. And I guess if your staff didn't do their job correctly, then you have all the right to reprimand them in any way, right? In my case, there's no such thing. No one gets reprimanded. Everyone is so lenient and it's also because maybe they feel like they don't have the right to do so especially since they really don't live up to their responsibility as supervisor and manager. Good luck on your job!
@STOUTjodee (3573)
• United States
5 Sep 12
At the jobs that I held a supervision title, I wasn't all that lenient. I expected them to do as good of a job as I did,if not better. One time I told my manager that if he didn't fire a person I was going to quit. Now, talk about a lenient boss, he was. Well, to make a long story short, she thought the manager was going to be in and that she could be late and come in whenever she wanted to and the manager had let her slide. Well, the manager was actually there and I guess he figured he didn't want to lose me, so I got sent down to do laundry and he fired her!
@STOUTjodee (3573)
• United States
4 Sep 12
In my experience I think it also depends on if the "higher up" is salaried or not. I worked as an Assistant Manager of a motel and also a Residential Manager of a group home. Both of these jobs I was paid for on a hourly basis. I tried to solve and keep the peace with my employees on my own. However, there were occasions where I had to let someone else handle it. Sometimes, a higher up has such a turn over of people who work under them and then they not only have to do their own job but of the other person's job until that job is filled.
@penrockerchic (1903)
• Philippines
5 Sep 12
I see. But in your case, it seems that even though problems occur, you still manage to follow the chain of commands and get things done. And if you can't seem to handle a particular job, you ask someone to do it. But in our working area, more often than not, you are on your own. No one does the job for you. NO one really does the checking. I'm not saying that I can't work without supervision, but having and knowing someone will back me up during hard times, would really be sufficient enough. Someone that you can actually ask questions from and rely on when needed.
@penrockerchic (1903)
• Philippines
5 Sep 12
And to add to that, they get paid a lot more than us because of their position and not because of their work or responsibility, which they seem to often forget.
@STOUTjodee (3573)
• United States
5 Sep 12
I work better without supervision, because I knew that I had to be in control to help people that were under me to understand what their job was. Pretty much every job I've held, such as the motel business, bar/resteraunt business I knew every aspect of the job, because I was willing and could do any of the jobs need be if someone didn't show up. I think there is alot of not communicating with employees/employers of what their job includes. If the person doesn't know the whole scope of their job description, it then gets "lost" and someone has to pick up the slack. So, I guess I've been fortunate and if I had a problem, I'd seek someone higher up that would either understand that I was capable of doing all the duties without help that when I couldn't I got help. Just like when I was Residential Manager at the group home, this home was the only home that didn't have an assistant manager. After I left, because I was so overloaded with the paperwork besides overseeing the care of those individuals, they then hired an assistant manager.
@KrauseHome (36447)
• United States
30 Jan 13
Personally, I do not think it really matters sometimes the position someone is in. A lot of them when given the higher positions almost become lazy, judgemental and never want to help anyone below them. They expect everything to get done with no real problems but never wanting to help out where it is needed. It is a situation where most of the time the people in these positions, would really be better off elsewhere.
@KrauseHome (36447)
• United States
11 Oct 12
Personally I have seen many incidences like this and it really depends a lot on what type of priority they can have and want to have and usually the budget as well. I think though in reality often times there are people out there in the same business who could probably do a better job.
@GardenGerty (160879)
• United States
3 Sep 12
It seems like the company and the CEO are not making use of the management team in the most effective manner. If the management team were being held responsible for things going wrong, then they would act responsibly in making sure you had what you needed to do the job properly. Whether it is staff, time, supplies, whatever, the manager should be helping you do your best.
@penrockerchic (1903)
• Philippines
3 Sep 12
So true. I couldn't agree more. It's not that I'm saying that the management is all to blame, but the thing is they do have the bigger role when it comes to such matters. It just feels unfair that they get paid more, when in fact, they don't seem to be doing their managerial tasks properly. And if we have some grievances and proposals that would be beneficial for the employees, they don't listen. They don't relay the proposals to our President.
@jenny1015 (13366)
• Philippines
3 Sep 12
From the way you said it, I think that the managers should really not be called managers coz they are not doing their jobs real well. If the President of the company is in direct contact with the employees, might was well take out all managers and supervisors. What work do these managers and supervisors do anyway? Check attendance of employees?
@penrockerchic (1903)
• Philippines
3 Sep 12
That's exactly my point. Might as well get rid of them and have everyone else in the same status as "employees". I guess I can accept that if that happens but it doesn't. It's really getting me pissed off by the minute.
