83,300
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|hr|{{image|Competence phase transition|png|The cost value threshold, yesterday}}}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|(“'''CVT'''”) /kɒst-ˈvæljuː ˈθrɛʃˌhəʊld/|n|}} | {{a|hr|{{image|Competence phase transition|png|The cost value threshold, yesterday}}}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|(“'''CVT'''”) /kɒst-ˈvæljuː ˈθrɛʃˌhəʊld/|n|}} | ||
'' | The ''cost-value threshold'' is the point where an employee’s ''value'' exactly equals her ''cost''. Quality being relative to cost, ''good'' staff sit above this line; ''bad'' ones below it. | ||
The “CVT” isn’t scientific. It is | The “CVT” isn’t scientific. It is hard to quantify the “[[Legal value|value]]” of non-revenue-generating staff, nor is that value stable through time. Some of us get better, some get worse. Contributions wax and wane. It is hard to know why. | ||
[[High modernism|Modernist]] ideology recommends keeping all staff as close to the CVT as possible. Reward those who over-contribute ''more'' to bring them into line; pay ''less'' to those who come up short. | |||
But practically — given difficulty understanding what these people actually do, let alone how valuable it is, human frailties, mortal weakness, market convention, labour laws and so on — this isn’t possible. | |||
You ''can’t'' just pay crappy employees less. Getting rid of them is expensive and risky. Coaching dullards towards better performance requires talent your [[human resources]] department is certain not to have. And paying good performers more ''just because they deserve it'' strikes against the basic principal of modern [[Human resources|human capital management]] that the reward for loyalty is a ''discount'', not a premium. | |||
So few employees sit exactly at the cost-value threshold. | |||
Most occupy a penumbra either side: a warm “safe zone” ''above'' the CVT, where ''somewhat'' over-delivering employees can sit happily until their worth has drifted so far into the ionosphere that they are finally bid away, and a cooler, larger “[[competence phase transition]]” space ''below'' the threshold where marginally net-negative staff can sit, for years, safely plodding along, not really helping, but also without great risk of prejudice, even when a [[reduction in force]] comes along. | |||
The different means of exit from this safe zone: voluntary departures from the top, and reductions in force to clear out at the bottom, generates an odd drift towards mediocrity{{sa}} | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Competence phase transition]] | *[[Competence phase transition]] | ||
*[[Lateral quitter]] | *[[Lateral quitter]] |