83,249
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}}|/kɒst-ˈvæljuː ˈθrɛʃˌhəʊld/|n|}}''Human resources science'': The point in an organisation where the ''value'' provided by a | {{a|hr|{{image|Competence phase transition|png|The cost value threshold, yesterday}}}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|/kɒst-ˈvæljuː ˈθrɛʃˌhəʊld/|n|}}''Human resources science'': The cost-value threshold (“'''CVT'''”) is the point in an organisation where the ''value'' provided by a member of staff, or item of capital, plant or machinery exactly equals its ''cost''. | ||
The | The CVT isn’t scientific. It is very, very hard to quantify the “[[Legal value|value]]” of staff who are not in revenue-generating roles. In this day in age, that is most of us. I mean ''them''. | ||
And nor is | And nor is one’s value over time necessarily stable. Some of us get better, some get worse. It is hard to know why. | ||
Pure [[High modernism|modernist]] ideology suggests the firm should keep all staff as close to the | Pure [[High modernism|modernist]] ideology suggests the firm should keep all staff as close to the CVT as it can. Those who over-contribute, it should pay more to bring them into line; those who under-contribute it should pay less. | ||
But practical challenges (namely, understanding what these people actually do, let alone how valuable it is), human frailty and so on means this won’t happen. | But practical challenges (namely, understanding what these people actually do, let alone how valuable it is), human frailty and so on means this won’t happen. | ||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
You ''can’t'' just pay employees less, getting rid of them is expensive and coaching or managing them to 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 basic tenets of modern [[Human resources|human capital management]]. | You ''can’t'' just pay employees less, getting rid of them is expensive and coaching or managing them to 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 basic tenets of modern [[Human resources|human capital management]]. | ||
There is therefore a warm “safe zone” | There is, therefore, a penumbra: a warm “safe zone” ''above'' the CVT, where 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'' it where net-negative staff can sit, for years, safely plodding along without really helping, but also without great risk of prejudice, even when a [[reduction in force]] comes along. | ||
Such inaction, however well intended, creates [[mediocrity drift]]. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Line 17: | Line 19: | ||
*[[Lateral quitter]] | *[[Lateral quitter]] | ||
*[[Reduction in force]] | *[[Reduction in force]] | ||
*[[Legal value]] | |||
*[[Mediocrity drift]] |