83,240
edits
Extreme prejudice: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{A|hr|}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ɪksˈtriːm ˈprɛʤʊdɪs |n}} | {{A|hr|}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ɪksˈtriːm ˈprɛʤʊdɪs |n}} | ||
1. ''Employment'' (rare): End a useless employee’s employment without that employee’s consent, making a mental note never to hire anyone even vaguely resembling that person again. Hence | |||
2. ''US military intelligence'': (To terminate with ~) tactically assassinate. Put out of his, and our misery. | |||
We have canvassed the odd phenomenon of [[mediocrity drift]] whereby the feedback loops of lateral resignation and [[reduction in force]] induce an odd system effect whereby the parts of your workforce you are most anxious to retain progressively deteriorates in ''quality'', if not numbers. | |||
Employment is not, naturally an equilibrium state.<ref>And nor should it be, though it is made (regrettably) more stable by labour laws.</ref> There is a sweet spot when master and servant both feel they are getting a reasonable return for their investment, but keeping to that sweet spot requires constant attention, the way navigating along a straight road still requires steering. In a perfect world one would do this by trimming and goosing salary expectations, but lord only knows it is not a perfect world. | |||
Hence these system effects. | |||
Now you might be [[inclined]] to look at this and think, “well, this is a fine state of affairs: by pruning the truly dismal in periodic job lots and letting the jumped-up and flighty go, we are nicely containing our costs within a tight range.” | Now you might be [[inclined]] to look at this and think, “well, this is a fine state of affairs: by pruning the truly dismal in periodic job lots and letting the jumped-up and flighty go, we are nicely containing our costs within a tight range.” | ||
This | This would be true were you not obliged to replace those who leave. | ||
The operating theory — honoured in the breach — is that [[RIF]] candidates are indeed surplus to requirements and are not replaced. [[Lateral quitter]]s less so but, in an organisation big enough to have its own [[human resources]] department,<ref>We have a theory that the point at which a firm acquires it's own a dedicated [[HR]] function is the tipping point at which it begins its sure descent into sclerotic middle age.</ref> you probably ''don’t'' need to replace leavers — or at least ''wouldn’t'', if you could hang on to those staff who actually got things done, while only getting rid of grifters. [[Parkinson’s law]] obtains. All big organisations have more middle management staff than they need. | |||
“Middle management” is a contradiction in terms, after all. | “Middle management” is a contradiction in terms, after all. | ||
But it is a canny organisation that only loses its grifters. if all you have left are work-shy plodders, do not expect them to take up the slack. You will need to back-fill departees, and — unlike those departing — you must pay the going rate. | But it is a canny organisation indeed that only loses its grifters. if all you have left are work-shy plodders, do not expect them to take up the slack. You will need to back-fill departees, and — unlike those departing — you must pay the going rate. | ||
At this point you have categorically ''worsened'' your position. | At this point you have categorically ''worsened'' your position. | ||