Workplace became unstable and stressful due to consultant’s role, with job and pay misaligned.The good thingsThe working environment used to be quite good and friendly. Although there was one senior staff who liked to act smart and stay close to the boss, on the surface this person appeared caring and sweet, but in reality often undermined others and played the victim when confronted. Many were misled by this ‘two-faced’ attitude. In other companies, such behavior would likely have resulted in disciplinary action long ago. Apart from that issue, the overall environment at that time was fine.
The challengesThe company relied too heavily on an external consultant (not from Malaysia), whose authority often exceeded the director. The director seemed reluctant to intervene, and the consultant’s KPI was unclear while employees were constantly evaluated. The position offered during the interview did not match the actual job scope; Production Engineer was supposed to focus on production but ended up covering QC and engineering. Salary was not aligned with workload, and the title was downgraded to “Engineer,” which felt misleading. Employees were asked to write letters as if it was their own request, for example when probation was extended or issues blamed on staff, while HR was unaware of the real situation. The safety officer role was treated as only 5S, though safety should be broader. Overall, the consultant’s role created a negative impact, making the workplace less organized, stressful, and contributing to high turnover. As a director, it is important to reconsider what has happened