Loyalty discount: Difference between revisions
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 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|hr|}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ˈlɔɪəlti ˈdɪskaʊnt |n|}}The great falsification of the [[human | {{a|hr|}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ˈlɔɪəlti ˈdɪskaʊnt |n|}}The great falsification of the [[human resources]] dogma. | ||
For the strictures of salary bands, [[forced ranking]], gerrymandered [[performance appraisal]] system — all the great apocrypha of the HR canon — mean that through time a given employee’s [[compensation]] will decouple from whatever value she offers the firm, however meagre.<ref>As we have remarked elsewhere,we take it is more or less axiomatic that all employees contribute some positive value to their organisation. Except for those ones who manage to remain on the payroll despite extended leaves of absence.</ref> | For the strictures of salary bands, [[forced ranking]], gerrymandered [[performance appraisal]] system — all the great apocrypha of the HR canon — mean that through time a given employee’s [[compensation]] will decouple from whatever value she offers the firm, however meagre.<ref>As we have remarked elsewhere,we take it is more or less axiomatic that all employees contribute some positive value to their organisation. Except for those ones who manage to remain on the payroll despite extended leaves of absence.</ref> | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Over time, those who remain loyal to the firm are ''penalised''. The only way to correct this — to [[mark-to-market|mark yourself to market]] — is to [[lateral quitter|join a competitor]]. | Over time, those who remain loyal to the firm are ''penalised''. The only way to correct this — to [[mark-to-market|mark yourself to market]] — is to [[lateral quitter|join a competitor]]. | ||
To be sure, salaries may drift upwards, decade by decade, courtesy of HR’s finely honed calculus, which 8s predicated on abstract value: a director is worth more than an associate director; a good associate director should be paid more than a bad one. All true, and fair,in the abstract, but this is to impose the tyranny of the average on everyone. There is no average employee. No-one at the firm operates in the abstract | |||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
*[[Lateral hire]] | *[[Lateral hire]] | ||
Revision as of 07:34, 23 November 2022
|
The Human Resources military-industrial complex
|
Loyalty discount
ˈlɔɪəlti ˈdɪskaʊnt (n.)
The great falsification of the human resources dogma.
For the strictures of salary bands, forced ranking, gerrymandered performance appraisal system — all the great apocrypha of the HR canon — mean that through time a given employee’s compensation will decouple from whatever value she offers the firm, however meagre.[1]
Over time, those who remain loyal to the firm are penalised. The only way to correct this — to mark yourself to market — is to join a competitor.
To be sure, salaries may drift upwards, decade by decade, courtesy of HR’s finely honed calculus, which 8s predicated on abstract value: a director is worth more than an associate director; a good associate director should be paid more than a bad one. All true, and fair,in the abstract, but this is to impose the tyranny of the average on everyone. There is no average employee. No-one at the firm operates in the abstract
See also
References
- ↑ As we have remarked elsewhere,we take it is more or less axiomatic that all employees contribute some positive value to their organisation. Except for those ones who manage to remain on the payroll despite extended leaves of absence.