Natural attrition: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The dismal [[human resources]] practice of neglecting to manage out poor employees, and instead waiting for [[lateral quitter|good ones leave by their own initiative]], and then not replacing them, as a means to [[RIF|managing headcount]]. | The dismal [[human resources]] practice of neglecting to manage out poor employees, and instead waiting for [[lateral quitter|good ones leave by their own initiative]], and then not replacing them, as a means to [[RIF|managing headcount]]. | ||
For sensitive types in HR who don’t like workplace conflict | For sensitive types in HR who don’t like workplace conflict, a smashing idea. 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}} | ||
Revision as of 14:23, 21 December 2022
|
The Human Resources military-industrial complex
|
Natural attrition
ˈnæʧrəl əˈtrɪʃ(ə)n (n.)
The dismal human resources practice of neglecting to manage out poor employees, and instead waiting for good ones leave by their own initiative, and then not replacing them, as a means to managing headcount.
For sensitive types in HR who don’t like workplace conflict, a smashing idea. 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.