Latest news with #workplaceChallenges
Independent Singapore
2 days ago
- Business
- Independent Singapore
Should I stay in my government job, or should I look for a new one?
SINGAPORE: A young Singaporean sought career advice online, writing that they've been working in a government role for the past three years but now wonder if it's time to move on to the next job. In a post on r/askSingapore on Thursday (June 5), u/chicky-mcnuggys wrote that they're now 26 years old and have been at the job since graduating. 'First ranking was ungraded, second and latest grades were C+. My ex-boss, with whom I had good relations, was pushing for me to get a B and had given me multiple stretch assignments, but someone else instead got the B because she was 'due' for promotion. Before my ex-boss left, she gave me additional assignments to justify a better grade for the next ranking, and I've completed them, with good reviews from Senior Management,' the post author wrote. They added that they hoped to get a rating of B in the next two years, which would qualify them for a promotion. See also How businesses can leverage their perks via skill swapping The problem appears to be their new boss, who seems less than generous with rankings. 'Let's just say that hope is out the window because s/he had no good feedback at all for me,' they wrote. While their supervisor disagrees with the feedback the new boss gave, in the end, what the boss says carries the most weight. This is causing the post author to worry that the next time they could be promoted would be in three or four years, and by then, they will be between 29 and 30 years old. 'Which is quite slow, no?… Is this normal, or should I just look elsewhere?' they asked, adding that they're due for rotation soon, which means they'll need to start again in a new division. 'I feel like I'm putting in 101% effort, but it sucks knowing it goes unacknowledged especially since I had to do way more than I'm expected to (since I was given stretch assignments),' they added, asking for advice as to whether or not they should keep their job, given the current job market. Commenters were sympathetic toward the post author, with many becoming upset on their behalf over someone else being due for promotion getting the 'B' rating instead of the post author. One advised them to manage their expectation about promotions. 'Title promotion can be fast, like with a senior/lead tagged to your current title. Usually comes with a little pay bump. Grade promotion is the one that takes longer. This one got a considerable bump in pay and usually takes three to four years from starting the position…unless you are chosen by heaven.' 'I always say, want to climb fast and high, go private sector to chiong, but also risk getting sacked for no reason. Gov't is slow and steady (unless you're a scholar) but (confirmed) will have a job through hell and back,' opined another. Others reassured her that for their age, their career progression is normal and that they shouldn't worry about it too much. See also Top 10 predictions for China cross-border e-commerce in 2019 'Gov't job good. Think thrice and understand private sector risks. Have a good financial plan for your career before any move,' urged a Reddit user. /TISG Read also: 'Just get your foot in the door,' Singaporeans tell new grad who's worried their starting salary isn't so high
The Sun
10-05-2025
- Business
- The Sun
My manager's absence means I've been left with little guidance – what should I do?
APPRENTICE star and West Ham United vice-chair Karren Brady answers your careers questions. Here, Karren gives advice to a reader who is Q) Since hiring me six months ago, my manager has barely been around, as she's been on and off sick leave. While she hasn't told me what's wrong, I of course wish her well. However, her absence means I've been left with little guidance. I knew my boss professionally before she employed me, and she created this position specifically for me. West Ham chief Karren Brady has her say on VAR in Premier League and predicts 'a season of anger and confusion' I was so grateful and excited to work together, but I've had to navigate everything on my own. Plus, whenever she briefly returns, she starts suggesting different ways of working, which just complicates matters, before she disappears again. What do you think I should do? Katie, via email A) Starting any new role is a challenge, but being left without leadership or clear guidance will hinder your ability to succeed. It's important to acknowledge and address how your manager's absence is impacting your work and your growth in the role. When you next meet, approach the conversation with empathy for her, while also being clear about your need for more consistent support, and offer suggestions on how you can work better together. Frame it in a positive way – express how much you value her leadership and were looking forward to working with her, then explain how a lack of guidance has left you feeling unsure about expectations. Ask if she'd be open to setting clearer priorities or suggesting someone else in the team you can check in with when she's not around. This shows you're proactive and respectful, while still advocating for yourself. If her absence continues to hinder your ability to succeed, consider a chat with HR. It's crucial to be proactive in your career and to have the support you need to thrive.
Daily Mail
08-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Charity director who claimed 'menopause madness' caused her poor performance at work loses disability discrimination claim
A charity director has lost her case for disability discrimination after blaming poor performance at work on ' menopause madness'. Deborah Sangster claimed her failure to hand in reports on time and attend meetings were due to symptoms causing 'low mood, irritability and night sweats', an employment tribunal in south London heard. Concerns were repeatedly raised about how she carried out duties in the two years she worked for StopWatch, which campaigns against police stop and search policies. She went on to resign before being sacked after her failure to provide regular reports to funders risked the charity losing vital income, the tribunal was told. Ms Sangster said she had been discriminated against and was 'suffering significant challenges with my mental health provoked by my menopause'. But the tribunal found the charity's criticisms of her over her failings at work had nothing to do with the condition. Indeed, it found StopWatch - based in Vauxhall, south London - had 'bent over backwards' to accommodate and support Ms Sangster while she showed 'no appreciation' for what they had done. The hearing, held in Croydon in south London, was told that Ms Sangster began working for StopWatch UK in June 2021 as an executive director. StopWatch, founded in 2010, aims to promote 'fair, effective and accountable policing', with a particular focus on stop and search policies. Ms Sangster's role involved financial management and reporting as well as fundraising applications to support the volunteer trustees. The tribunal heard that from the start of her employment there were issues with Ms Sangster who was described as 'difficult to contact', did not turn up for meetings and missed reporting deadlines including to the organisation that funded her role. In January 2022, Ms Sangster had a probation review in which she was told to improve her time management. Concerns about her fundraising work were also raised, including over an expression of interest form for a grant which was submitted six months late. Despite these concerns, the tribunal found the charity had provided Ms Sangster with 'every chance of success' because they did not want to let her go. In June 2022, the day before a trustee meeting, Ms Sangster asked to take a week off to 'gather her energy' because of issues in her personal life. The trustees suggested she take her leave after the meeting to provide her handover, but she did not attend and it was cancelled. After the aborted meeting, one trustee sent an email to the others explaining the situation and raising further concerns about Ms Sangster's performance - including a suggestion that her projects were 'ill-conceived and poorly executed'. Ms Sangster was offered a month of paid leave during which time she saw a menopause specialist and was prescribed HRT to manage her low mood, brain fog, poor memory and night sweats. On her phased return to work at the start of September she agreed, at the time, to a co-director plan with the employee who had been covering in her absence - halving her workload. She emailed one of the trustees the following month to thank them for their support through what she called her 'menopause madness'. Ms Sangster also discussed some of her physical symptoms but made no mention of mental health issues under which she would later claim disability discrimination. In January 2023 one of the trustees, who was also a long-standing friend of Ms Sangster, spoke to her about the performance concerns that were going to be raised at an upcoming meeting and told her 'all options were available' regarding her employment. At the meeting where continued concerns over her meeting attendance and funding reports were raised, Ms Sangster explained she felt overwhelmed and was only operating at '70 per cent' of her former self. The tribunal heard that one key report that Ms Sangster failed to deliver on time was for the Charity Commission. At the end of January, she raised a grievance on the basis she was being treated poorly because of her disability, sex and age. Ms Sangster told the tribunal that, in her view, once she made this formal complaint things became 'incredibly difficult' at work. At the end of the grievance process, Ms Sangster was told that the charity did not accept that her menopause symptoms qualified as a disability but they would still continue to make reasonable adjustments. In April, she was invited to a contractual review meeting because of 'serious concerns' about her performance - especially concerning her failure to report to a key funder. Later that month, whilst the review process was ongoing, Ms Sangster resigned - claiming the conditions had become 'unbearable'. The tribunal found she had never tried to link her failure to submit a report to her mental health and that StopWatch had 'bent over backwards' to support her and that even when her role was halved she could not complete her duties. Employment Judge Helen Rice-Birchall said Ms Sangster showed 'no appreciation' for what the charity had done for her. She said: 'At no point did [Ms Sangster] ever say to [StopWatch] that she was unable to submit a specific of her alleged disability. 'She was vague and unspecific and did not link her ill health to her failings in a way that [they] could contemplate that her failings were down to her alleged disability. 'However, [StopWatch] bent over backwards to support her, reducing her role by half, and yet [she] still did not perform or even properly communicate with [them] to explain why reports were late and so on despite numerous opportunities to do so. '[Ms Sangster] showed no appreciation for what they had done for her, seeking in this tribunal to complain that her role had been split, even though she could not perform the half which remained. 'In her evidence the claimant appeared to criticise [another executive] for effectively being pedantic in his management of the accounts. 'The Tribunal concludes that [he] probably did have a sense of frustration with [her] attitude to finance, not least because her chaotic and disorganised approach meant that [StopWatch's] financial compliance, in a highly regulated sector, was at risk. 'Her approach meant that she would or could not take on more responsibility as budget holder which was what was expected of her. There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this was because of any menopause related ill-health.' Ms Sangster lost her claims for disability, age, and sex discrimination, disability harassment and victimisation. She was also ordered to pay £1,750 after being found to have acted 'vexatiously' during the tribunal process.
