Cost-value threshold: Difference between revisions
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]] | |||
Revision as of 21:19, 22 November 2022
|
The Human Resources military-industrial complex
|
Cost-value threshold
/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 CVT isn’t scientific. It is very, very hard to quantify the “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 one’s value over time necessarily stable. Some of us get better, some get worse. It is hard to know why.
Pure 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.
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 capital management.
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.