Lateral quitter: Difference between revisions

Lateral quitter (view source)

Revision as of 08:38, 21 November 2022

769 bytes added , 21 November 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,229

edits

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ===The loyalty discount===
 “But excellent employees will be rewarded with better pay and progression” is an objection only offered by someone who has not heard of the [[loyalty discount]]. [[HR]] will have forged ironclad compensation bands, based not in any assessment of the quality of the workforce (because how could HR, of all functions, possibly know?) but by some opaque benchmarking operation carried out by consultants “gathering data” from their their peers. HR’s main concern — beyond arbitrary [[Simpson paradox]]ical concerns with abstract measures of global fairness — gender pay, for example — will be '' not setting a precedent ''. Your manager will shake his head mournfully and say, “my hands are tied.”
+===Affirmative action====
+Notice another curious, unintended, negative feedback loop. Let’s say firms generally run a benign affirmative action policy. This means, all other things being equal, they will hire minority employees first, and clear out majority employees first in a [[RIF]].
-Notice another curious negative feedback loop caused by HR policy. Lets say firms generally run a benign affirmative action policy. This means, all other things being equal, they will hire minority employees first, and clear out majority employees first in a [[RIF]]. Since you tend to laterally hire one at a time, but fire in large groups, and since minority employees are by definition, a minority, this has a powerful bias.
+Since you tend to laterally hire one at a time, but let employees go in large groups, and since minority employees are, by definition, a minority, this may have a powerful bias.
+Predicated on three assumptions: that lateral quitters are generally good employees, redundancy candidates generally bad ones, and the individual abilities of all personnel, relative to their cost, are evenly distributed regardless of their majority/minority status. If so your “good section” will progressively become majority-dominated — they are not being bid away — and your “bad section” progressively minority dominated.
-If [[HR]] were worth the space it occupied, it would ask who these lateral quitters are, and ''why'', in general terms, they are walking away. On the other hand, it takes no towering intellectual insight to figure it out. In broad strokes it boils down to: ''money'', ''progression'', and ''[[tedium|quality of work]]''.
+How your incoming lateral hires perform will remain to be seen, but since performance is relative to cost, and QED they are Your arriving at a higher cost than the ones you are replacing, they start not as outlier good staff, but average ones.
+===Look after what you have===
+If [[HR]] were worth the commodious space it occupied, it would ask who these lateral quitters are, and ''why'', in general terms, they are walking away. On the other hand, it takes no towering intellectual insight to figure it out. In broad strokes it boils down to: ''money'', ''progression'', and ''[[tedium|quality of work]]''.
 Another way of looking at that continuum is this: you pay poor employees more than they are worth to you, and good employees ,''less'' than than they are worth.