Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
From a review of the earlier post on “job security”, are you the same guy who keeps shouting out about FSG here and there, as though hoping that someone up there in FSG will notice?  If so, granting you your wish!
Well I can tell you that I had personal conversations with some of the resignees from departments in FSG. My question to them was, from the outside the work in your department looks glamorous, you appear to be on the cusp of promotion or are otherwise secure in your position, your immediate bosses seem ok, why leave?
Some of the answers (paraphrased):
- Job scope in reality was not what they expected and/or keeps changing from job description
- Management keeps chasing next new shiny thing, as a result of which job scope is not predictable
- Demanding bosses and their questions
I believe these reasons would have been informed to HR during the exit interview. (Does HR do anything with that questionnaire?)
For avoidance of doubt, these people include those who have come to MAS from industry, stayed for a number of years (3 to 5 or more), and then chose to left again - possibly for a lower salary.
So it is true, it is not all about the money. But your logic applies both ways. Balanced against other push factors, the supposed job security provided by MAS doesn’t at all appear to be the fortress you describe. If it were, people who have willingly joined MAS from industry and are doing ok, why not stay here their entire career? What are the factors that cause the itch around years 3-7? (When they are still marketable)
Let’s not extend the argument to the whole public service, because we can only credibly comment on those organisations we have worked in - even so, our experience would be reflective of the specific teams we worked in. Some departments have fantastic bosses, so it’s entirely believable that in those cases job security makes up for below the market pay.
I don’t think people who post negative comments on this forum necessarily hate MAS or want it to fail. Very much to the contrary, some people care enough to point out what needs change because they do love MAS and know there are good, talented ones in the place who can bring about change. But what is truly off putting is people who insist on a one-sided rosy narrative because they think it’s what their higher ups feel assured to hear. A wise person would ask if the criticisms or comments have basis, where management or staff can do better (since it takes two to clap), how the most well meaning initiatives by top brass can be effectively implemented… in a nutshell, put money where the mouth is! |
I agree. We should always think of ways to improve.
Personally, my own jobscope turned out to be quite different from what the job description said. It is pretty annoying. But there are other reasons why I'm still here I guess, along with the colleagues who have stayed. Ultimately its a balance of pros and cons that each person must weigh for themselves.
Management chasing the "next new shiny thing" is actually important for our work. Especially in FSG, new risks are emerging all the time, and it is incumbent upon us to assess whether such risks can be managed by our FIs. Cyber risk and AI risk in particular, will become very prominent within the next few years. As much as I don't want to jinx myself, cyber attacks will increase in frequency and severity as the world becomes much more digitalized. Climate risks probably not so much.
What I disagree with, however, is the adhoc manner in which such risks are dealt with. The right way should be for top management to sit down and come up with the best way to address these risks. How to assign work between the departments, what data needs to be collected and how to store it, is existing legislation enough to address these risks, do we need to shift headcount or add more headcount to be able to tackle these risks, what kind of expertise should we be looking to obtain, do we have such expertise in-house, etc. A strategic view is definitely required.
But no. What usually happens is that some random boss casually comes across an article online that talks about this risk. He/she then suddenly feels that this is an important risk, and then sends an email to the departments asking them whether our FIs are exposed to this risk. The officers then have to scramble to ask the FIs for such information, with no sense of how urgent this matter is, or if it is even urgent in the first place. The FIs themselves sometimes also don't even collect such information in the first place. Anyway the boss gets his/her report after the officers hastily put together something for him/her and replies with a simple email of acknowledgement.
Here are issues with the process:
1) The boss doesn't consult with the other bosses whether this is a risk that
MAS should devote attention to. He/she is simply basing it off an article that was published. It might actually be a small risk or a risk that is already managed relatively well.
2) If it is an important risk, then it must be considered what is the information needed to address this risk.
3) If this risk is established to be important and recurring, then a formal process should be instituted among the departments to monitor this risk, along with regular data submission. Instead, arbitrary data is being collected each time which makes it unpredictable for the FIs. This is because the process of data collection each time was not seriously thought through.
4) Even after the data is submitted, there must be an analysis of the data, with people expressly designated to do it. The question then needs to be asked who are the people who should do it and are they qualified to do it.
5) After the analysis has been done, it remains to be discussed what is the residual risk left, and whether any remediation to the legislation or supervisory framework needs to be carried out.
This is a fairly straightforward process that I think everyone in
MAS, even the bosses, agree with.
Unfortunately, it is not being implemented very well. Instead, we get patchwork of random information collection that needs to be carried out, sometimes for seemingly unimportant items just because a boss got too carried away with the article. And then after an email to the boss, the issue is considered "closed", until the boss reads his/her next article some time in the future, when he/she suddenly gets reminded of the risk again. You also have to factor in the change in boss(es), where the new boss might be clueless as to what the old boss had asked.
So yes, the poor officer has to deal with this unpredictable behaviour because no systematic approach in the organization was taken to address such risks. And yes, there are certain bosses who expect the officer to have a lot of information about the FI on hand, without considering whether such information is collected routinely. The officers are not from Hogwarts and simply cannot come up with stuff on the wave of a wand.