CEO: It is still a mess here. Haven't you tidy-up the place? Me: No, I have not. CEO: Why not? Waiting for an invitation card? Me (angry): Of course not. I need to confirm with Tham which are the things can be/cannot be archived/thrown (Tham is my manager and is on vacation leave). CEO: Didnt he allocate some tasks for you to do? Me: Yes, he did. I am doing en bloc letters, preparing for mayday event.. <<He walked away in disbelief.>> Above was a conversation with my CEO Mr Tseng. I address him as Mr Tseng instead of CEO. CEO, Chairman, these are titles. People who address them by titles told me it's a form of respect. BULLSHIT, i said. Everyone has a name and that's what names are for. You want to respect a person or to sound/look formal, then add a MR/MISS/MDM/DR/PROF and not titles. Anyway, I find this is a very stupid, meaningless way to check on employees. Certainly he has got better things to do like investment or how to capture member's interest and why must he walked all the way from his room to my workstation to check on me? Well, he checks on managers too, the things that they do, time they report to work, etc. Afterwhich, I wrote an email to Tham to make a little suggestion: "Please inform the respective personnels that tasks have been allocated to me when you're on vacation leave. Otherwise, there are colleagues who thought that I have all the time in the world." I wonder what's Tham reaction after reading the email that I sent. Enough of my rant. I feel much better now.  |