83,428
edits
Mediocrity drift: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Let’s say firms, when presented with broadly equivalent candidates, prioritise those of a type it doesn’t have when [[lateral hire|hiring]], and those of which it has too many when selecting candidates for a [[RIF]]. For those who value ''cognitive'' [[diversity]], let alone ''cultural'' diversity, stands to reason. | Let’s say firms, when presented with broadly equivalent candidates, prioritise those of a type it doesn’t have when [[lateral hire|hiring]], and those of which it has too many when selecting candidates for a [[RIF]]. For those who value ''cognitive'' [[diversity]], let alone ''cultural'' diversity, stands to reason. | ||
Since one tends to hire one golden strand at a time, but reduce the workforce in large hanks, this creates an odd system effect, predicated on three assumptions: | Since one tends to hire one golden strand at a time, but reduce the workforce in large hanks, this creates an odd system effect, predicated on three general assumptions: | ||
* | *Staff with [[lateral quitter|the gumption to leave]] tend to be ''relatively'' good employees. | ||
* | *Conversely: those who aren’t much chop — who are already overpaid for what they do — are tend not to quit, because they are onto a good thing, would need to find an even more gullible employer to hire them: consequently they will only leave if you make them, by performance management or through a [[RIF]]. | ||
*That all personnel, however you | *That all personnel, however you categorise them, are evenly distributed relative to the [[cost-value threshold]], and that any given subgroup, however classified (except by reference to pure value) will be about as good as any other. | ||
So, IT professionals as a group will be as good | So, IT professionals as a group will be as good ''at what they do'' as will lawyers; young as well as old, men as women, and so on. Each group — IT pros, legal eagles, the young, the old, men, women — will ''within their own group'' have broadly similar distributions of outperformers and plodders. | ||
If so, then a system which favours one group (group A) over another (group B) has a counterintuitive effect on the remaining populations of | If so, then a system which favours one group (group A) over another (group B) has a counterintuitive effect on the remaining populations of both groups: on ''average'', the unfavoured group will ''increase'' in relative value, and the favoured group will ''decrease'' in relative value, ''even though no individual performance, in either group, changes at all''. | ||
On a second glance, you can see why this should be so. The process systematically weeds out ''underperforming'' members of group B and ''overperforming'' members of group A. The “good” side of the distribution will progressively become group B-dominated — they are not being bid away as frequently — and the “below par” section will becomes progressively group A dominated, as poor performing group B members are selected for eradication. | On a second glance, you can see why this should be so. The process systematically weeds out ''underperforming'' members of group B and ''overperforming'' members of group A. The “good” side of the distribution will progressively become group B-dominated — they are not being bid away as frequently — and the “below par” section will becomes progressively group A dominated, as poor performing group B members are selected for eradication. | ||