Dear Shwetavi,
Going by the inputs you've provided, I could only express some thoughts here, whether they may be right or wrong, totally or half here and there.
First of all, you should realize yourself what your role is in the firm. I presume the projects are part of "Procurement, Operation/Execution, sales, and Customer Accounts." I think these are directly under the Tech head or the CEOs themselves. Therefore, you have hardly anything to give directions to the team members in the project execution. It appears from your opinions that what the team members say to you in confidence is what they might feel, probably right or wrong. However, the CEOs should be aware of what they are doing and how their instructions impact the projects at hand with the project team. You or anybody cannot put on the shoes of the CEOs. They know their priorities, and it is their company, and whatever the bottom line is going to be, it will reflect their own deeds. So, it is needless for you to get offended by what the CEOs do.
Secondly, CEOs, in their best judgments, prioritize for reasons not known to you and the team. It is always there in any business to switch/deviate to other tasks for some reasons depending on circumstances. I don't deny that for these deviations, the team could have finished Project A, but you forget that it is the CEOs who are going to be answerable for the slippages, not the HR. In such a small firm, it is quite normal to deviate like this. There was no other option; where was Team B to execute Project Z? Do you want the CEO to recruit an exclusive Team B? The order book position didn't justify a new Team B. Probably the CEOs achieved optimum utilization of Team Project A. In fact, think of it this way: while executing Project A, you should take pride that you executed Project Z as well, which was not there originally. This means you did two projects at a time, isn't it? This is positive thinking from your example.
Thirdly, it is nearly impossible to give instructions in one go at the beginning itself. It is nothing wrong to add instructions in the course of execution or modify the given instructions. Of course, the team has to recommence the project all over again, a fact the CEOs are definitely aware of. The team naturally should get frustrated. You have to live with it. Don't think this sort of thing happens only in your firm. It's happening, and it will happen everywhere.
Then, how did you think it is 'dictatorship'? Yes, it is dictatorship; what else could it be? There are only two CEOs. Where does democratic functionality come from? After all, it's their firm; they have every right to allow the firm to function according to their whims and fancies. Of course, the style and tenor will vary from person to person; you have to live with it whether you like it or not.
So, you people are unnecessarily getting worked up and worried for nothing. It's not a fairy tale but a way of life you have to live with, whether you like it or not. The only thing you people can do is quit and join another big company, only to let yourselves lament; then, your remarks would be like this: "See this team leader, he/she behaves as if it is their own company. If it were his/her own firm, how would he/she have behaved, God only knows." Am I not sounding realistic or pragmatic, friend?
Take things in their proper perspective and move ahead. All the best.
Going by the inputs you've provided, I could only express some thoughts here, whether they may be right or wrong, totally or half here and there.
First of all, you should realize yourself what your role is in the firm. I presume the projects are part of "Procurement, Operation/Execution, sales, and Customer Accounts." I think these are directly under the Tech head or the CEOs themselves. Therefore, you have hardly anything to give directions to the team members in the project execution. It appears from your opinions that what the team members say to you in confidence is what they might feel, probably right or wrong. However, the CEOs should be aware of what they are doing and how their instructions impact the projects at hand with the project team. You or anybody cannot put on the shoes of the CEOs. They know their priorities, and it is their company, and whatever the bottom line is going to be, it will reflect their own deeds. So, it is needless for you to get offended by what the CEOs do.
Secondly, CEOs, in their best judgments, prioritize for reasons not known to you and the team. It is always there in any business to switch/deviate to other tasks for some reasons depending on circumstances. I don't deny that for these deviations, the team could have finished Project A, but you forget that it is the CEOs who are going to be answerable for the slippages, not the HR. In such a small firm, it is quite normal to deviate like this. There was no other option; where was Team B to execute Project Z? Do you want the CEO to recruit an exclusive Team B? The order book position didn't justify a new Team B. Probably the CEOs achieved optimum utilization of Team Project A. In fact, think of it this way: while executing Project A, you should take pride that you executed Project Z as well, which was not there originally. This means you did two projects at a time, isn't it? This is positive thinking from your example.
Thirdly, it is nearly impossible to give instructions in one go at the beginning itself. It is nothing wrong to add instructions in the course of execution or modify the given instructions. Of course, the team has to recommence the project all over again, a fact the CEOs are definitely aware of. The team naturally should get frustrated. You have to live with it. Don't think this sort of thing happens only in your firm. It's happening, and it will happen everywhere.
Then, how did you think it is 'dictatorship'? Yes, it is dictatorship; what else could it be? There are only two CEOs. Where does democratic functionality come from? After all, it's their firm; they have every right to allow the firm to function according to their whims and fancies. Of course, the style and tenor will vary from person to person; you have to live with it whether you like it or not.
So, you people are unnecessarily getting worked up and worried for nothing. It's not a fairy tale but a way of life you have to live with, whether you like it or not. The only thing you people can do is quit and join another big company, only to let yourselves lament; then, your remarks would be like this: "See this team leader, he/she behaves as if it is their own company. If it were his/her own firm, how would he/she have behaved, God only knows." Am I not sounding realistic or pragmatic, friend?
Take things in their proper perspective and move ahead. All the best.