83,240
edits
Mediocrity drift: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|hr|}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|/ˌmiːdɪˈɒkrɪti drɪft/|n}}A curious, unintended, negative feedback loop of lazy [[human capital management]]. | {{a|hr|}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|/ˌmiːdɪˈɒkrɪti drɪft/|n}}A curious, unintended, negative feedback loop of lazy [[human capital management]]. | ||
Let’s say firms generally run a benign affirmative action policy, to increase representation. This means, when presented with equivalent candidates, it will prioritise | Let’s say firms generally run a benign affirmative action policy, to increase representation. This means, when presented with equivalent candidates, it will prioritise candidates of a type it doesn’t have when [[lateral hire|laterally hiring]], and those in over-represented groups when selecting candidates for a [[RIF]]. | ||
Since one tends to laterally hire one at a time, but | Since one tends to laterally hire one golden strand at a time, but reduce the workforce in large hanks this creates an odd system effect. | ||
This effect is predicated on three assumptions: | This effect is predicated on three assumptions: | ||
*That, generally, lateral quitters are ''relatively'' good employees | *That, generally, lateral quitters are ''relatively'' good employees. | ||
*That [[RIF]] candidates | *That, generally [[RIF]] candidates aren’t. | ||
*That | *That all personnel are evenly distributed relative to the cost-value threshold, and that any given subgroup, of staff, however classified (except by pure value) will be about as good as each other. So IT professionals will be as good as what they do as will lawyers; young as well as old, men as women and so on. Each will have outperformers and plodders. | ||
If so, then running | If so, then running a system to favour one group over another has a rather counterintuitive effect on the remaining population. On ''average'', the majority will ''increase'' in relative value, while minority will ''decrease'' in relative value, ''even though no individual performance changes at all''. | ||
On second glance you can see why this should be so. The process systematically weeds out bad majority employees and good majority ones. The “good section” will progressively become majority-dominated — they are not being bid away as frequently — and the “below par” section becomes progressively minority dominated. | On second glance you can see why this should be so. The process systematically weeds out bad majority employees and good majority ones. The “good section” will progressively become majority-dominated — they are not being bid away as frequently — and the “below par” section becomes progressively minority dominated. | ||