Floor occasionally go to the Social Courts to attend a dispute, especially to keep things in perspective and keep close to a reality that at least still exists and that sometimes the managers of people we move too. Typically, soil choose a certain timing issues with some complexity, some of them emblematic companies and complicated issues and of tremendous attention (harassment, breach of good faith, loss of confidence of managers, discrepancies in the relationship, moral damages, etc. ..).
The last case that "has come to hand" involved 4 directors of a multinational Japanese automotive, now under the umbrella of a French multinational group, with several centers in Spain and that chance oh! !, and in which more than 20 years ago I formed a very active part of the first project in which I was pleased to participate, "Incorporation of Talent." These people joined about 21 years to that company and have during this long period had a career that could be called successful, have held positions of responsibility and have a salary that would commensurate with their duties. In sum, certainly have been admired, envied, hated, loved, rejected, etc. When very indirectly - I switched to another company soon, I have been aware of his successful career did not stop feeling a certain pride and satisfaction, while a ratification of what's new talent to the organizations was Well, the end of the "facts are good reasons."
Suddenly, an unexpected change in the Directorate General of factories where they were performing their jobs, are removed from their functions and in a short time fulminant dismissed. As the place where the events occur is a province and a town where "everybody knows" the social and media impact is very high and it rains, it pours, as the former Director General "alma mater" of factories, few years earlier been fired in the absence of a few weeks for their retirement and refloated after companies from scratch in the harsh post-crisis era of the late 70's. Leo
carefully the Court of Justice, and do not leave my utter amazement. The sentence that has no waste, but for the layman in legal terminology might be a bit tricky, it says that is not seen none of them committed no offense and in any case has not been demonstrated. Covers all of them, four - some more than others, of the total defense since the rules of the company at the time of authorizing certain transactions were not responsible and set out clearly its limits. And this is where I dwell a little more, is that these people are acquitted of the facts against them and therefore declared their dismissal as unfair. We are hawking everything from business and from its human resource addresses a key for companies to improve their competitiveness is to create spaces of freedom "and" create environments for innovation and creativity "that flies in the face with the policies and systems of the companies trying to" procedimento "all under very prescribed and specific rules. Reached the "moment of truth" both sides are often sneak in defending their interests to show that it was not and that they followed at all times with company standards. And I wonder, is it not a paradox to claim that employees take risks while creating extremely rigid rules? In a case such as briefly set out what I think I think those who stay in the organization? Will you take a decision minimally risky but could be very beneficial for the company? This creates a paradox, in my opinion, leads to an organizational paranoia, paranoia is determined mainly by two types of distressing feelings, one that is usually defined as "persecution mania" and another as "delusions of grandeur", other , but these are the most common. If in the end, we generate are organizations in which some of the people who comprise it inevitably feel constantly persecuted by uncontrollable forces and others with an air of grandeur and with a desire for grandeur and dictatorial behavior, Do you believe that in these environments will be possible to have productive and edifying? Indeed the four directors have been compensated and unfair dismissal but who replaces them their reputation and credibility as well as the suffering of these past months? and above all who will ensure that those who have been moving a finger, risking or assume responsibilities beyond the provisions in the rules?
The last case that "has come to hand" involved 4 directors of a multinational Japanese automotive, now under the umbrella of a French multinational group, with several centers in Spain and that chance oh! !, and in which more than 20 years ago I formed a very active part of the first project in which I was pleased to participate, "Incorporation of Talent." These people joined about 21 years to that company and have during this long period had a career that could be called successful, have held positions of responsibility and have a salary that would commensurate with their duties. In sum, certainly have been admired, envied, hated, loved, rejected, etc. When very indirectly - I switched to another company soon, I have been aware of his successful career did not stop feeling a certain pride and satisfaction, while a ratification of what's new talent to the organizations was Well, the end of the "facts are good reasons."
Suddenly, an unexpected change in the Directorate General of factories where they were performing their jobs, are removed from their functions and in a short time fulminant dismissed. As the place where the events occur is a province and a town where "everybody knows" the social and media impact is very high and it rains, it pours, as the former Director General "alma mater" of factories, few years earlier been fired in the absence of a few weeks for their retirement and refloated after companies from scratch in the harsh post-crisis era of the late 70's. Leo
carefully the Court of Justice, and do not leave my utter amazement. The sentence that has no waste, but for the layman in legal terminology might be a bit tricky, it says that is not seen none of them committed no offense and in any case has not been demonstrated. Covers all of them, four - some more than others, of the total defense since the rules of the company at the time of authorizing certain transactions were not responsible and set out clearly its limits. And this is where I dwell a little more, is that these people are acquitted of the facts against them and therefore declared their dismissal as unfair. We are hawking everything from business and from its human resource addresses a key for companies to improve their competitiveness is to create spaces of freedom "and" create environments for innovation and creativity "that flies in the face with the policies and systems of the companies trying to" procedimento "all under very prescribed and specific rules. Reached the "moment of truth" both sides are often sneak in defending their interests to show that it was not and that they followed at all times with company standards. And I wonder, is it not a paradox to claim that employees take risks while creating extremely rigid rules? In a case such as briefly set out what I think I think those who stay in the organization? Will you take a decision minimally risky but could be very beneficial for the company? This creates a paradox, in my opinion, leads to an organizational paranoia, paranoia is determined mainly by two types of distressing feelings, one that is usually defined as "persecution mania" and another as "delusions of grandeur", other , but these are the most common. If in the end, we generate are organizations in which some of the people who comprise it inevitably feel constantly persecuted by uncontrollable forces and others with an air of grandeur and with a desire for grandeur and dictatorial behavior, Do you believe that in these environments will be possible to have productive and edifying? Indeed the four directors have been compensated and unfair dismissal but who replaces them their reputation and credibility as well as the suffering of these past months? and above all who will ensure that those who have been moving a finger, risking or assume responsibilities beyond the provisions in the rules?
