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 ]
