Natural attrition: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|hr|}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ˈnæʧrəl əˈtrɪʃ(ə)n|n|}} | {{a|hr|{{image|but a scratch|jpg|Some natural attrition yesterday.}}}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ˈnæʧrəl əˈtrɪʃ(ə)n|n|}} | ||
The dismal [[human resources]] practice of | The dismal [[human resources]] practice of managing a [[reduction in force]] not by tactically managing out poor employees, nor by strategically excising unneeded ones in a [[Redundancy|redundancy round]], but by waiting for [[lateral quitter|good staff leave by their own initiative]] and then not replacing them. | ||
For sensitive types who don’t like workplace conflict, a smashing idea. For | For sensitive types in HR who don’t like workplace conflict, natural attrition seems a smashing idea: kind, humane and low-risk. For [[shareholder]]s, a terrible one, ensuring as it does the inevitable [[mediocrity drift|drift to mediocrity]] among the [[stewards of your capital]]. | ||
A sensible [[human resources]] department — and here we are bound to say we are unpersuaded such a thing exists — would pursue the opposite strategy, devoting time effort and, if need be, money, talking good employees ''out'' of leaving and, and funding any such expenditure by culling the poor ones. | A sensible [[human resources]] department — and here we are bound to say we are unpersuaded such a thing exists — would pursue the opposite strategy, devoting time, effort and, if need be, money, talking good employees ''out'' of leaving and, and funding any such expenditure by culling the poor ones. | ||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:58, 8 February 2024
|
The Human Resources military-industrial complex
|
Natural attrition
ˈnæʧrəl əˈtrɪʃ(ə)n (n.)
The dismal human resources practice of managing a reduction in force not by tactically managing out poor employees, nor by strategically excising unneeded ones in a redundancy round, but by waiting for good staff leave by their own initiative and then not replacing them.
For sensitive types in HR who don’t like workplace conflict, natural attrition seems a smashing idea: kind, humane and low-risk. For shareholders, a terrible one, ensuring as it does the inevitable drift to mediocrity among the stewards of your capital.
A sensible human resources department — and here we are bound to say we are unpersuaded such a thing exists — would pursue the opposite strategy, devoting time, effort and, if need be, money, talking good employees out of leaving and, and funding any such expenditure by culling the poor ones.