New boss interviewing existing employees

[Arlington Road]

Jurisdiction

Alabama

I have been with my present employer for almost 22 years. In just over 3 and a half years from now, I will be eligible for retirement. We just had a major change in management. My immediate supervisor who I had worked under since late 2005 retired a month or so ago. I had known him for some time prior to him being my boss. He had been a co-worker prior to becoming the department head in late 2005. So, when he got that promotion, he knew all of us in the department, as for what we did, what kind of workers we were, etc. In other words, that transition was pretty seamless. However, 2005, this is not. The upper echelon has moved very quickly on hiring his replacement. This person is a complete outsider. They come in with extensive employee management experience. Policies and procedures are their specialty. They have, in essence, found a very different kind of boss, which is exactly what they were looking for. From what we have been told, this person has a unique style. Part of that is to "interview" the employees that they will be acquiring.

It doesn't sound like a one on one, get to know people kind of thing. It sounds like we will actually be interviewing for the jobs that we already have. Is such a thing common? And what if the new boss isn't overly impressed with our interviews? Could this new boss terminate someone based off of this? This boss hasn't even started yet, and already, nobody is getting a good feeling, as this feels very intimidating.

 

[army judge]

It doesn't sound like a one on one, get to know people kind of thing. It sounds like we will actually be interviewing for the jobs that we already have. Is such a thing common?

Very common

what if the new boss isn't overly impressed with our interviews?

You could be terminated, demoted, or promoted.
Any internet stranger knows less than you do about the inner workings of your unknown to the stranger employer.

Could this new boss terminate someone based off of this?

Of course, or the boss could terminate 10 people just to fkex her power!!!

This boss hasn't even started yet, and already, nobody is getting a good feeling, as this feels very intimidating.

Today is very much like the 90s, quit a job, have 10 employment offers within 24 hours.

 

[cbg]

Is such a thing common? And what if the new boss isn't overly impressed with our interviews? Could this new boss terminate someone based off of this?

Quite common. It is not even remotely unusual for new management to "clean house" by bringing in their own people that they are used to working with. They don't always even bother to interview the existing employees to find out how well they might fit into their new vision - at least in your case they're doing you that courtesy.

Yes, it is quite possible that people could be termed. It would be rare if at least few people didn't lose their job when a new management comes in.

 

[Arlington Road]

3 and a half years to retirement and I could be fired. Well, it is what it is, I guess. I just hope they don't stick my retirement in their pocket. I've always wondered why if employees are so bad, why is the new management the ones who do the firing? Why didn't the old management? And if the answer is because the old management was bad too, then how did they stay in power, so to speak, for so long? And if the answer is that the old management's hands were tied, why was that and what's different about the new management? Why does the new management have latitude that their predecessor did not? Those are just things I've always wondered about the workforce and employment in general.

 

[Zigner]

The flip side is that it's quite possible that the new boss just wants to know who everyone is, their thoughts on the current operations, and their views on things that are going right and things that are going wrong.

 

[adjusterjack]

Those are just things I've always wondered about the workforce and employment in general.

After 22 years, you have to wonder?

Except for the interviews, you're describing what happened to me. I had a job that I loved and was willing to work until normal retirement age.

Then our company president retired and the parent company put in a new president who, like yours, wanted to make the company over in his own image. He installed a whole tier of middle management, the sole purpose of which was to monitor are work and make minute criteria part of our performance review and bonus. I stood that for a year and announced my early retirement at the age of 60. Fortunately I had the financial resources that allowed me to retire without having to work anymore.

I can't predict whether those interviews will be "getting to know you" or a witch hunt.

Hope for the best.

Prepare for the worst.

 

[Arlington Road]

After 22 years, you have to wonder?

Except for the interviews, you're describing what happened to me. I had a job that I loved and was willing to work until normal retirement age.

Then our company president retired and the parent company put in a new president who, like yours, wanted to make the company over in his own image. He installed a whole tier of middle management, the sole purpose of which was to monitor are work and make minute criteria part of our performance review and bonus. I stood that for a year and announced my early retirement at the age of 60. Fortunately I had the financial resources that allowed me to retire without having to work anymore.

I can't predict whether those interviews will be "getting to know you" or a witch hunt.

Hope for the best.

Prepare for the worst.

It sounds silly saying I wonder after 22 years, LOL. But, after 22 years, me still has no answer, LOL. It just makes me scratch my head when the new sheriff comes to town, and suddenly, unlike their predecessors, they are able to terminate employees with zero problem. Whereas, the previous management's hands were tied. I just know that this new boss will tell me adios and give me a "you're not working out here" speech. To which I will ask if I am not working out here, how did I make it for 22 years and that that says more about the place than me if such a bad apple slipped through the cracks for more than two decades. Of course, the previous management will get thrown under the bus as being the ones who made this "blunder" of a hire many years ago. I can just hear it now

In 1997, three years before I came to my present (and possibly soon to be former) employer, I was fired from a job, and it was more or less done publicly. The new management already had the 411 on who was good and who was bad. So, they already had the permanent vacation list when they arrived. My termination papers had been drawn up by someone at corporate headquarters 1000 miles away. And the hatchet man held a meeting with everyone but me and announced that some changes would be made and the first one leaving would be me and he just wanted to get that out there before they heard any rumors. So, literally everyone but me knew that I was getting dismissed within the next few days from then. The loss of that job turned out to be a blessing in disguise. But, at the time, the embarrassment was unlike anything I had ever experienced. I looked into filing a lawsuit for emotional distress, but the three lawyers I talked to said that they doubted anything would come out of it because I worked there of my own volition or some such. It was weird. I could write a book on the crap I've encountered.

Also, that same hatchet man that handed me my walking papers hit the ceiling when he heard that a new company had picked me up. He said something about calling them and letting them know what a hellish nightmare they were in for by hiring me. He never did it, only because he never found out the name of my next employer. This was 1997, so the internet was not as prevalent yet as it would later become in the 2000's.

 

[justblue]

Unless you are in a Union or have a contract, your employer can fire you for any reason not prohibited by state/federal law.

 

[cbg]

Also, sometimes it's not a question of the "old" employees being "bad". But new management coming in often has a different direction that they want to take the company/their department and they're more comfortable with the people they've worked with before. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you or your performance; it's a matter of comfort level.

Also, what Zigner said. There really doesn't have to be any malevolence in the meetings. It might simply be that he wants to get a better handle on who he now has reporting to him.

 

[zddoodah]

In just over 3 and a half years from now, I will be eligible for retirement.

I assume what this actually means is that you will become eligible for some sort of monetary benefit.

The upper echelon has moved very quickly on hiring his replacement. This person is a complete outsider. They come in with extensive employee management experience. Policies and procedures are their specialty.

I'm confused about your use of plural pronouns. Did "the upper echelon" hire a single person to fill the role vacated by your former supervisor or were multiple people hired to take over the responsibilities of that position?

Is such a thing common?

This question raises no legal issue.

what if the new boss isn't overly impressed with our interviews?

How should we know?

Could this new boss terminate someone based off of this?

Could it happen? Of course. Is it legal? Probably, unless you're not an at-will employee.

I've always wondered why. . . .

I assume these are all rhetorical questions.

 

[adjusterjack]

It sounds silly saying I wonder after 22 years, LOL. But, after 22 years, me still has no answer,

You're expressing the same sentiments that I have often expressed after 40 years in corporate America.

As for the interview you might consider secretly recording it in case there may be reason for an age discrimination lawsuit.

Alabama is a one party consent state which means you need only your consent to record.

See 13A-11-30:

Alabama Code Title 13A, Chapter 11, Article 2 (2021) - Offenses Against Privacy. :: 2021 Code of Alabama :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

 

[Zigner]

You're expressing the same sentiments that I have often expressed after 40 years in corporate America.

As for the interview you might consider secretly recording it in case there may be reason for an age discrimination lawsuit.

Alabama is a one party consent state which means you need only your consent to record.

See 13A-11-30:

Alabama Code Title 13A, Chapter 11, Article 2 (2021) - Offenses Against Privacy. :: 2021 Code of Alabama :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

It might not be against the law, but it could be against company policy...which could be considered a for-cause reason for termination. (Just a thought for the OP to keep in mind.)

 

[flyingron]

Longevity alas doesn't mean squat these days. I was fired over the phone after over 20 years with the company because I was an attractive target due to my higher salary. Of course, they hired me back as a consultant at four times the effective rate a couple of years later after the next reorganization when they realized they were screwed up.

What was particularly galling was that with each of the management changes, I had specifically provided the new guys with a nice report on where we were and where we needed to go. I'm not even sure the last guy even read the thing. It had been worked on with all of the senior people still working there.

 

[stealthy1]

I'm confused about your use of plural pronouns. Did "the upper echelon" hire a single person to fill the role vacated by your former supervisor or were multiple people hired to take over the responsibilities of that position?

Perfectly correct grammatical usage, and one that is increasingly common these days. For example, since I don't know your gender, I could say "I replied to zddoodah's query because they do not seem to appreciate that what they consider plural pronouns can also be used in the singular when gender is unknown."

 

[zddoodah]

Perfectly correct grammatical usage, and one that is increasingly common these days. For example, since I don't know your gender, I could say "I replied to zddoodah's query because they do not seem to appreciate that what they consider plural pronouns can also be used in the singular when gender is unknown."

Whether it's common or not is beside the point. Where it creates confusion/ambiguity as to whether the plural pronoun is being used to refer to multiple people or to refer to a person of unspecified gender, it is incorrect. In your example, there is no such confusion AND you don't know my gender. In the case of the original post, ambiguity existed, and, if the OP was referring to only a single person, the OP presumably knows that person's gender. However, if the OP were to respond and explain that he/she simply isn't sure whether the person in question is a male or a female, then that would clear things up.

 

[adjusterjack]

What was particularly galling was that with each of the management changes, I had specifically provided the new guys with a nice report on where we were and where we needed to go. I'm not even sure the last guy even read the thing. It had been worked on with all of the senior people still working there.

One thing I learned many years ago is that management doesn't want any input from employees, despite saying that they do. It's a way of weeding out employees who aren't in lock step with their policies and who show even a spark of independent thought.

 

[Arlington Road]

Whether it's common or not is beside the point. Where it creates confusion/ambiguity as to whether the plural pronoun is being used to refer to multiple people or to refer to a person of unspecified gender, it is incorrect. In your example, there is no such confusion AND you don't know my gender. In the case of the original post, ambiguity existed, and, if the OP was referring to only a single person, the OP presumably knows that person's gender. However, if the OP were to respond and explain that he/she simply isn't sure whether the person in question is a male or a female, then that would clear things up.

That is correct. I don't yet know this person's gender, so that is why I am going with the pronouns "they" and "them". I should have clarified that from the start

 

[Arlington Road]

Also, sometimes it's not a question of the "old" employees being "bad". But new management coming in often has a different direction that they want to take the company/their department and they're more comfortable with the people they've worked with before. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you or your performance; it's a matter of comfort level.

Also, what Zigner said. There really doesn't have to be any malevolence in the meetings. It might simply be that he wants to get a better handle on who he now has reporting to him.

That is a good point. Right now, everyone (at my place of employment within my department) is only seeing the downside. I think the intimidation and consternation comes from the fact that we will be made to feel like we are the new people, when in fact, the boss is the new person. We have to impress a person we don't know who is coming in with a "if this place was being run the right way, what am I doing here" kind of approach. That's IF that is how this new boss is coming in. There's still a lot we don't know yet. And if worse came to worst and the new boss doesn't see me fitting into their new vision, it is going to cost them some big bucks to get rid of me, as well as others, given how close we are to retirement eligibility. As zddoodah pointed out, I (as well as others) will be eligible for some sort of monetary benefit, should this individual decide to clean house. So, the new boss will have that to weigh, and that's a pretty big thing to weigh. One interesting thing to note, my now retired boss told us on his last day "you all watch each other's backs. A new boss will have a certain latitude that I simply never had". I wonder what that means. That he had no power to make changes during his 16 plus years as our boss? And if he didn't, why not, and why will the new person? All rhetorical, of course. Just things that make me wonder aloud.

 

[Zigner]

As zddoodah pointed out, I (as well as others) will be eligible for some sort of monetary benefit, should this individual decide to clean house.

I don't believe that zddoodah stated such a thing as a certainty, except to point out that you seemed to imply that you would be eligible for a monetary benefit in "just over 3 and a half years".
You would not necessarily be entitled to anything solely because your employment is terminated. The only way you would be entitled to something (let's call it "severance pay") is if you have a contract that provides for it. Of course, if you are able to prove (not just allege) age discrimination, then you may also be entitled to something that's not what you referred to (or what zddoodah responded to).

 

[cbg]

I have in the past gone through two hostile takeovers (one from the acquiring and one from the acquired side) and two mergers of major companies. In all cases, the lower down the ladder you were, the more likely you were of keeping your job. It was the folks at the upper end who found themselves, as the British say, Made Redundant. (Of the four, the only time I lost my job was the hostile takeover when we were acquired; they closed the entire division as the acquiring company already had an office in our city. Not one of us was absorbed into the existing location. However, no one in any of our other nine locations lost their job.

For what it's worth.