If you are rolled off a project because of budget, is that actually the case or are they just lying and trying to be nice and I actually suck?
Or are they lying and it was because I sucked? We are approaching the end of our project with the final due 11/20.
I'm a first year associate; I've been here for 69 business days.
The MD and manager said it was because of budget. The MD said on our team call that it was "not personal" and "not because of anything someone did or did not do."
I was given negative feedback twice by the EM - poorly written executive summaries for notes the first time (I fixed it, and the engagement manager said I improved). I also didn't take verbatim notes once, but I fixed that as well.
The other feedback was: looking at the big picture more / eliminating unnecessary details, working on speed and efficiency, being more proactive and making my own workstream, and speaking up more during meetings.
Assuming this is not a troll, it really depends on the situation/ no one on this forum can tell you for certain, but given the information you provided, seems unlikely to be performance related because a) the bar for new joiners is very low and you are expected to kind of "suck" and b) getting rolled off due to performance is kind of a huge deal, so much so that if it were to happen, the team and your staffer would make it very clear. You are in the working world so there is not a ton of "trying to be nice" anymore.
I actually disagree with the above post. I have seen situations where budget was the cited reason someone was rolled off, but really someone else could have been rolled off instead or something else could have been done instead of rolling the person off. For instance, maybe in your case the project is just low profitability and you didn’t need to be rolled off necessarily if they thought you were adding more value, but they didn’t feel that you were worth keeping on.
Directly citing performance reasons would be much more confrontational for them, and some people go out of their way to avoid these kinds of conversations, even if it means being less than honest.
Im not saying you were rolled off for performance reasons. It’s very plausible that this is completely due to budget. But you can’t rule out that performance impacted the decision, especially if you received negative feedback.
On the bright side, if they weren’t willing to formally cite performance as the reason then you are less likely to get a terrible review or get flagged for poor performance. So in the end it might not matter that much whether it was or wasn’t performance related.
I'm OP and I honestly agree with you a lot more than the other poster. I definitely feel like it was a combination of budget and me being a no or low-value add (aka sucking performance-wise).
I wouldn't say necessarily that I got lots of negative feedback, but definitely more constructive than positive.
The thing is though, I do feel like my EM is pretty blunt, but even then I guess it's hard to tell someone that their performance is the reason they're getting kicked off.
Sapiente vero provident sint mollitia. Sint dolorum et veniam tempore.
Dolor aut ea sequi eum officia. Eveniet nihil fugit non illum. Nesciunt eos ipsa molestiae repellat nihil.
Quia praesentium esse autem et vero ea velit. Atque blanditiis assumenda sit sint sed iste et. Delectus nam nostrum maxime quam occaecati deserunt.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...