Extreme prejudice: Difference between revisions

Extreme prejudice (view source)

Revision as of 08:58, 6 December 2022

295 bytes added , 6 December 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,240

edits

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 Now you might be [[inclined]] to look at this and think, “well, still, this is a fine state of affairs: by pruning the truly dismal in job lots and letting the jumped-up and flighty go one at a time, we are nicely containing our costs within a tight range.”
-This would be true were you not obliged to replace those who leave. 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 its own dedicated [[HR]] function is the point at which it is ''too'' big, whereupon it begins its sure descent into sclerotic middle age.</ref> [[Parkinson’s law]] obtains: you probably ''don’t'' need to replace leavers — or at least ''wouldn’t'', if you could hang on to those few staff who actually got things done.
+This would be true were you not obliged to replace those who leave. 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 its own dedicated [[HR]] function is the point at which it is ''too'' big, whereupon it begins its sure descent into sclerotic middle age. “[[Middle management]]” is a contradiction in terms, after all.</ref> [[Parkinson’s law]] obtains: you probably ''don’t'' need to replace leavers — or at least ''wouldn’t'', if you could hang on to those few staff who actually got things done.
-And indeed, the operating theory for a reduction in force — honoured in the breach though it is — is that those put “[[At risk of redundancy|at risk]]” are indeed surplus to requirements and should not replaced. This is of course fatuous: most [[RIF]]s are a cheap way of trimming poor performers.
+And indeed, the operating theory for a [[reduction in force]] — fully honoured in the breach though it is — is that those put “[[At risk of redundancy|at risk]]” are functionally surplus to requirements and should not replaced. This is of course fatuous: most [[RIF]]s are a cheap way of trimming poor performers.
+But it is a canny organisation indeed that keeps all its stars and only loses donkeys. 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.
- [[Lateral quitter]]s less so but,   All big organisations have more middle management staff than they need.
+At this point you have categorically ''worsened'' your position.
-“Middle management” is a contradiction in terms, after all.
-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.
+So herewith our premise. It may seem a bit Hobbesian. But firms should be more active in targeted termination. It is for the better of everyone.
 ===Quid pro quo===
-The good burghers of [[HR]] are scarcely more inquisitive about ''underperformers'' than they are about [[lateral quitter]]s. They should be.
+The good burghers of [[HR]] are scarcely more inquisitive about ''underperformers'' than they are about [[lateral quitter]]s. In recent times, egged on by loopy notions of [[stakeholder capitalism|a higher purpose]] they have become distracted by theoretical questions of social justice, and lost focus on their one job: making sure the staff are cutting mustard.
 Generally, clods are allowed to lie fallow for unfeasibly long periods, languishing in a pool of non-advancement, continuing to draw a underwhelming salaries — in that they are more than they are worth — until finally tilled at one of the firm’s irregular mass [[RIF|culls]]. Here many laggards and no small number of good ’uns, are dispensed with at once, more or less indiscriminately.