Headquarters weren’t really aware of the situation and—as it seemed—didn’t really care. A few days later the big day: The CEO sent an e-mail announcing the new VP. In my humble opinion the CEO should have taken the time to introduce the VP in person. Oddly enough the VP didn’t feel the need of a stuff meeting or even introducing himself to the top performers either. But headquarters never talked with a single one of them.
Anyway, the VP came and followed the old German saying: New brooms brush well. Everything got changed.
We all know that top performers can be quite different from others. The new VP didn’t understand that or he just didn’t care. Within one week he not only fired the number one top performer; had the company miss a clients deadline—he also lost the contract that one person worked on.
Causing the company to lose a six figure revenue over one year—more than 40%! of the companies whole revenue.
Headquarters never considered to investigate or letting go of that VP.
Wouldn’t you agree that employees and managers that get their position only because of their relations and not their performance aren’t the right employees?
How long would it have taken you to replace the new VP?
Or - at the very least - to find out what is really going on?
For what it’s worth—the two other top performers left the company within two months after the new VP arrived. Not even a year later the East Coast operations unit got closed.
And until today the CEO claims that the old VP caused all the troubles…
Would you name the CEO or the new VP leaders?
Tags: ambitions brooms brush well ceo days later east coast operations few days letting go mail new vp oddly enough one person operations unit single one six figure top performer top performers west coast company