Yes, agree I'm about 2 months into this new role and doing everything I can to make the best of it. I'm in my 50's and looking to retire in about 10-12 years, so I feel like I've reached a plateau (actually more like a pinnacle that may be hard to maintain IMO). In this final act, really just looking for a 9-5 job that I enjoy/contribute well to , have a decent boss and short commute. That's all I need and I'm pretty happy and content. Long hours to climb the corporate ladder is no longer my goal.
Basically what the owner (small company <20 people) has done in this reorganization 2 months ago, was making all our staff to be involved and have roles/responsibilities in all aspects of the business (sales, marketing, along with continuing in their specialized expertise they were hired for). So there were 3 people at the same grade level before. One loved doing the client relations stuff, once was like me and loved doing project management, the other was very well rounded and did everything well with no complaints or weaknesses. Now all 3 have to spread across all those activities and being evaluated in their annual reviews according to the new generic position grade expectations. It's like instead of having a cohesive band that functions well with a singer, drummer, bass player etc. the owner now expects everyone to now be proficient and contribute well at all their instruments. Clearly a few people shine and others struggle at certain things as that's just human nature. Makes no sense at all from anyone I've talked to except: a) creates a more generic org structure that works more effectively for a sale or b) weed out existing people who only provide a niche specialization and the owner wants to replace them with expert people who are expected to do very well at many things. Although no one has been let go in over 2 years I've been here. The owner prefers to bring in young, inexpensive staff vs. veteran more experienced staff. 2 years ago I was the last highly experienced person they've brought in...probably added 7+ people all under 30 years old since then. I get it if the focus is on improving bottom line with lower salary, yet at the same time ower overrides my decision to keep existing staff as we can saturate more projects with same staff but he brings people on board way ahead of the new agreements in place and revenue guaranteed and also its a strugge as a manager to keep them busy (so under this strategy the ower doesn't care about the bottom line?). Its extremely confusing to figure out what's going on with this strategy. More staff = more attractive for a sale? If there is anything else logical that I'm missing here please let me know. And if the owner were to sell the company, it woudl be to be absorbed by a larger competitor (whom we've actually poached a few recent employees from).
For what its worth the last 2 years prior to this reorg. have been the best work experience/job in my whole career. I knew to appreciate the ride while it lasted but I never saw being stripped out of what I was doing very well for the company and put into a position where I struggle. I guess it could also be a passive/agressive way to try to get me to leave on my own terms vs. being let go. Since others in the company have also been impacted by this change however, I don't think singling me out in this way is likely.