I am really confused. Do partners care about audit quality? What is the dynamics here? Which one is more important- audit quality or relationship management?
If I write upward feedback to Partners pointing out issues with the WP signed off by Senior managers, would they care?
If someone is put on a plan unfairly, why wouldn't there be any ways to correct that? I feel being kind will only invite bullying, rather than receiving mutual respect here.
This is most amusing to me - two senior managers were not sure how the work should be done, and the person who asked them questions was blamed for that on a first-year audit. They raised that person to a formal plan.
Obviously, the easy way to solve that problem is "never ask questions again - you may ghost ticking", but is this right?
Another point is that "asking questions" is not relying on them to solve the problem, it is a way of communication. They wrongly interpreted that as being challenged or being put on the spot as they don't know the answer... but who should know on a first-year audit?
It looks to me you don't need good technical skills to be promoted, you just need to learn how to deal with people. However, who can bear unfair treatment and work towards it (the plan)? I don't understand.
If I am leaving the company, what should I do to make myself feel better?
Do you think KPMG is trustworthy in terms of good working environment and audit quality? Can you be yourself here as well as taking care of other people's reasonable needs? I really don't think it is a good practice to put people on a formal plan without solid reasons. Not to mention the root cause is that senior managers don't know how to perform audit and don't treat work carefully.
I am quite shocked to learn that...
Do you think there will be a good result if I keep arguing? As I really don't see myself could work with any plans. If they cannot be justified, they will not be clear in any way and it will become a constant distraction for work.
This is really amusing to me. I've also seen people whose skills are so poor passed the plan just by accompanying senior managers all day online while she didn't even know how to test cash...
I am totally shocked by the way how things work here... good people and good work cannot be seen. Terrible people stay as they try so hard... but still, their abilities are poor... I am really shocked indeed.
I really don't know what a masterful way to deal with this case is. I certainly shouldn't be treated unfairly. I just cannot accept unfair treatment- why is it so hard to correct a problem?
It looks to me they made a fatal mistake to raise me to a formal plan in this way- no prior communication, no feedback given, no reasonable explanation for the feedback later received, no long enough time working with each other.
I am sorry I will not give it up. I will disclose as much information as I can to correct the case. I just feel probably partners don't care about audit quality, because if they do, they should deal with this case more carefully. They should know the problem lies with senior managers, not the junior staff who is eager to learn. - That should be an alarming signal to the whole file signed off by them.
If they can tolerate senior managers' mistakes and inabilities like that, I really see no reason I should be on a formal plan.
No logic works. I have been very kind to everyone - the only difference is that I asked questions positively the first year I worked here. - as being advised on Reddit.
If someone asked my advice for staying here -
Never ask questions and pretend you know everything.
Learn by yourself.
Take care of your manager's mood carefully.
Audit quality? Maybe exist may be not. - Definitely not the priority you should care about.
I really hope some partners can answer my questions and let me know their views. (I know the chance is slight. I don't believe Partners have time on Reddit... Anyway... just to share to help relieve my bad mood - maybe I"ll delete it later)
I've also learned in order for you to win - you have to present your case as a barrister could do - calmly and professionally, the way you describe it matters... they cannot allow your plain challenge, words such as lies, discrimination are too sharp to hear. You have to say "inconsistencies" "confusion" "unclear communication"
I just don't know the meaning of all these...
If I am able to do that, I will be a barrister instead of being stuck here. (However who knows? Probably one day.)